ABSTRACT
When I think about the present state of feminist literary theory at the same time that I think about my history as a feminist, I come up with some bad news - feminist literary studies are in a state of violent division. Then, on reflection, I end with some news that seems better: the stakes - as always - are changing. I've been disturbed by the bitter debate in literary studies between feminists oriented toward theory, especially French theory, and feminist critics reading women writers, past and present, in archeological or celebratory ways. TorH Moi's 1985 book Sexual/Textual Politics typified the Anglo-American/French divide that Betsey Draine compared in 1988 to the contest between the two women in the judgment of Solomon, fighting over who was entitled to claim the baby in the Icing's custody. Draine admits that her analogy is an uncomfortable one: why should an Old Testament monarch be figured as the judge over who has priority in feminist theory and criticism? But she is right to say that the debate has taken on the quality of ancient myth, with each side exaggerating the shortcomings and flattening out the intricacies of its opponent.
