Reply to comment

To begin, I heartily agree with Schweickart's point that "...reader-response criticism needs feminist criticism."(36) I think that the critique of text without the consideration of how women read the material or are presented therein is pointless. While, as Schweickart points out, feminist criticism does not approach reader-response theory without bias, reader-response theory supports the relationship between the reader and the text, and this relationship is also almost always inherently biased. The preconceptions in feminist theory are valuable considerations when analyzing a text.
I find myself reading increasingly more often in the manner which Schweickart describes; that is, trying not to allow the text to place me personally in the shoes of the main character, but instead trying to stay unbiased and consider the other characters or speakers. I certainly believe that the author is not the master of the reader or of the text, nor should the reader ever consider a single text the authority on a subject. I personally think that the weight of authority lies with the reader, not the author, as the author is, in the end, catering to the reader. As a feminist reader, I sincerely think that theories, stories, and articles are written to be read, and the author must cater to her readers on some level, and, in turn, expect criticism.
I do, however, find a point of contention or two with Schweickart's argument. The separation of female readers from male readers rubs me the wrong way. Do higher estrogen levels and the ability to bear children necessarily make women different readers from men? Perhaps this is too harsh a judgment to make of a female author; I may simply be misreading her acknowledgment of the patriarchy in her piece.