Di Prima and Feminism pt 2: The Contradiction of the Motherly Role

            As many preach their own philosophy which they do not always wholly live by, di Prima incorporated her views on personal independence and the rejection of the mainstream role of a housewife. Although she did not press her views as strongly as others, such as Burrows, she did still deviate from them a bit, even if the lines weren't as finely drawn out.

            Di Prima made herself responsible for many people, as she maintained several "pads" holding young people within them, taking on an almost motherly role. She did what she had to in order to make money for these people, including the writing of many fabrications within her book Memoirs of A Beatnik, which was initially published as nonfiction and later categorized as fiction due to the great influence of di Prima's editor and the necessity to pay rent.

            Although many people did rely on di Prima, placing her in a housewife-like role, one should note that she maintained her stability without the help of a partner, therefore diminishing the American standard. However, the fact that she is inclined to take care of others does give off the impression of a motherly role. This also contradicts her independent philosophy, as she is not only living for herself at this point, but for others as well.  While one could argue that di Prima was being independent if living for her own desires meant assisting others, it should also be understood that these desires are likely conventional and persistent due to her scientific role to reproduce and take care of children.

            This takes us to the next point, in which di Prima makes the decision to have a child. While it was untraditional at the time for a woman to opt to raise a child on her own, it has been done before, and is done in many other species. Monogamy is the human ideal and not necessarily realistic. Di Prima dismisses the idea of keeping a man around, perhaps knowing that men are unreliable, or perhaps aware that she is unreliable to a man. In any case, this rejection does not make her decision entirely feminist, as she still hopes to carry out her main role as a woman: to birth a child.

            In di Prima's defense, I did not find any articles that depicted her being involved with any radical feminist groups or standing up strictly on behalf of female empowerment. From what I understand of di Prima, she represents individual empowerment and the acquisition of one's desires. Therefore, her possibly innate desire to take care of others in a motherly role does not rule her out of the feminist category. It only means that her desires were likely as raw and instinctive as it gets: they were anatomic. To some, this makes her more Beat, and perhaps more of a feminist, than ever.