Margaret’s, but I still contend that both period. In fact it was not dualism that was writers are guilty of simplifying and being advocated but, along with many distorting these feminists’ ideas on feminists who were closer to a ‘sexual sexuality, thereby missing what it is about libertarian’ than a moral purity position, a them that is both contradictory and call for unity of mind (or spirit) and body, fascinating. with the latter subordinate to the former and Reading Sheila’s book and Margaret’s not necessarily denied. These feminists article in the light of my study of the were reacting to what they felt to be their feminists they mention makes me rush to reduction to mere physicality; they were these feminists’ defence at being wrongly demanding that men change, that women lumped together into one camp: should be able to have sexual relations on revolutionary feminists’ foremothers to their own terms, that love not ‘lust’ should Sheila, coercive moralists to Margaret. be the basis of a relationship be tween the Ellice Hopkins was undoubtedly involved sexes. To dismiss this, as does Margaret in certain coercive actions, such as the Hunt, as some quirky, reactionary position regulation of prostitutes’ behaviour; of a few nutty social-purity feminists is Margaret is right in thinking that Sheila has both to misunderstand the context in which ‘whitewashed’ her image. However, as far demands were made, and to fail to realize as I am aware, neither Frances Swiney nor that such ideas were current currency across Lucy Re-Bartlett, and Elizabeth different kinds of feminism. Wolstenholme Elmy least of all, were I agree with Margaret Hunt that there is involved in any remotely comparable indeed a problem with a position which activities. Indeed Elizabeth Wolstenholme over-emphasizes the victimization of Elmy was very critical of any kind of moral women by men at the expense of policing of other women. recognizing women’s power to act. Margaret mockingly quotes Frances However, many social-purity feminists did Swiney’s advocacy of ‘raising sex relations encourage women to act: to stand up to from the physical to the spiritual plane’. men, armed with knowledge of sex and the Unless we know more about the context in workings of their bodies. Feeling able to which such ideas developed, they probably say ‘no’ to undesired sex is surely a crucial strike us as fairly extraordinary. But this prerequisite to being able to say ‘yes’ to quote represents not only a classic sex that is truly desired. If my concern with theosophical position, (and large numbers representation and distortion sounds like of feminists, from Charlotte Despard to petty quibbling, it is worth remembering Annie Besant, were followers of that writing a history of feminism of the theosophy), but also a vision held to by past is not 100 miles away from writing a many non-theosophical feminists at the history of feminism of the present. At least time. As for misreadings of these feminist’s feminists in the present can answer back. ideas, one example is Margaret’s accusation Lucy Bland of there being a ‘remarkable revival of London mind/body dualism enshrined in the concept of “psychic love”’, a concept developed by several feminists in this

DOI link for Margaret’s, but I still contend that both period. In fact it was not dualism that was writers are guilty of simplifying and being advocated but, along with many distorting these feminists’ ideas on feminists who were closer to a ‘sexual sexuality, thereby missing what it is about libertarian’ than a moral purity position, a them that is both contradictory and call for unity of mind (or spirit) and body, fascinating. with the latter subordinate to the former and Reading Sheila’s book and Margaret’s not necessarily denied. These feminists article in the light of my study of the were reacting to what they felt to be their feminists they mention makes me rush to reduction to mere physicality; they were these feminists’ defence at being wrongly demanding that men change, that women lumped together into one camp: should be able to have sexual relations on revolutionary feminists’ foremothers to their own terms, that love not ‘lust’ should Sheila, coercive moralists to Margaret. be the basis of a relationship be tween the Ellice Hopkins was undoubtedly involved sexes. To dismiss this, as does Margaret in certain coercive actions, such as the Hunt, as some quirky, reactionary position regulation of prostitutes’ behaviour; of a few nutty social-purity feminists is Margaret is right in thinking that Sheila has both to misunderstand the context in which ‘whitewashed’ her image. However, as far demands were made, and to fail to realize as I am aware, neither Frances Swiney nor that such ideas were current currency across Lucy Re-Bartlett, and Elizabeth different kinds of feminism. Wolstenholme Elmy least of all, were I agree with Margaret Hunt that there is involved in any remotely comparable indeed a problem with a position which activities. Indeed Elizabeth Wolstenholme over-emphasizes the victimization of Elmy was very critical of any kind of moral women by men at the expense of policing of other women. recognizing women’s power to act. Margaret mockingly quotes Frances However, many social-purity feminists did Swiney’s advocacy of ‘raising sex relations encourage women to act: to stand up to from the physical to the spiritual plane’. men, armed with knowledge of sex and the Unless we know more about the context in workings of their bodies. Feeling able to which such ideas developed, they probably say ‘no’ to undesired sex is surely a crucial strike us as fairly extraordinary. But this prerequisite to being able to say ‘yes’ to quote represents not only a classic sex that is truly desired. If my concern with theosophical position, (and large numbers representation and distortion sounds like of feminists, from Charlotte Despard to petty quibbling, it is worth remembering Annie Besant, were followers of that writing a history of feminism of the theosophy), but also a vision held to by past is not 100 miles away from writing a many non-theosophical feminists at the history of feminism of the present. At least time. As for misreadings of these feminist’s feminists in the present can answer back. ideas, one example is Margaret’s accusation Lucy Bland of there being a ‘remarkable revival of London mind/body dualism enshrined in the concept of “psychic love”’, a concept developed by several feminists in this

Margaret’s, but I still contend that both period. In fact it was not dualism that was writers are guilty of simplifying and being advocated but, along with many distorting these feminists’ ideas on feminists who were closer to a ‘sexual sexuality, thereby missing what it is about libertarian’ than a moral purity position, a them that is both contradictory and call for unity of mind (or spirit) and body, fascinating. with the latter subordinate to the former and Reading Sheila’s book and Margaret’s not necessarily denied. These feminists article in the light of my study of the were reacting to what they felt to be their feminists they mention makes me rush to reduction to mere physicality; they were these feminists’ defence at being wrongly demanding that men change, that women lumped together into one camp: should be able to have sexual relations on revolutionary feminists’ foremothers to their own terms, that love not ‘lust’ should Sheila, coercive moralists to Margaret. be the basis of a relationship be tween the Ellice Hopkins was undoubtedly involved sexes. To dismiss this, as does Margaret in certain coercive actions, such as the Hunt, as some quirky, reactionary position regulation of prostitutes’ behaviour; of a few nutty social-purity feminists is Margaret is right in thinking that Sheila has both to misunderstand the context in which ‘whitewashed’ her image. However, as far demands were made, and to fail to realize as I am aware, neither Frances Swiney nor that such ideas were current currency across Lucy Re-Bartlett, and Elizabeth different kinds of feminism. Wolstenholme Elmy least of all, were I agree with Margaret Hunt that there is involved in any remotely comparable indeed a problem with a position which activities. Indeed Elizabeth Wolstenholme over-emphasizes the victimization of Elmy was very critical of any kind of moral women by men at the expense of policing of other women. recognizing women’s power to act. Margaret mockingly quotes Frances However, many social-purity feminists did Swiney’s advocacy of ‘raising sex relations encourage women to act: to stand up to from the physical to the spiritual plane’. men, armed with knowledge of sex and the Unless we know more about the context in workings of their bodies. Feeling able to which such ideas developed, they probably say ‘no’ to undesired sex is surely a crucial strike us as fairly extraordinary. But this prerequisite to being able to say ‘yes’ to quote represents not only a classic sex that is truly desired. If my concern with theosophical position, (and large numbers representation and distortion sounds like of feminists, from Charlotte Despard to petty quibbling, it is worth remembering Annie Besant, were followers of that writing a history of feminism of the theosophy), but also a vision held to by past is not 100 miles away from writing a many non-theosophical feminists at the history of feminism of the present. At least time. As for misreadings of these feminist’s feminists in the present can answer back. ideas, one example is Margaret’s accusation Lucy Bland of there being a ‘remarkable revival of London mind/body dualism enshrined in the concept of “psychic love”’, a concept developed by several feminists in this