Jump to content

Feminism Redux


Guest Raidne

Recommended Posts

Guest Raidne

Just read this opinion article/book review by Naomi Wolf over coffee this morning, and I thought it was great.

Essentially, it's about second-wave feminism and so-called third-wave feminism. Wolf describes second-wave feminism like this:

Friedan's second wave feminism, loosely described, was sincere in its emotional tone, reformist (though many would say radical) in its goals and middle-class or upper-middle-class and overwhelmingly white in terms of its most visible spokeswomen. Its great strength lay in analyzing entrenched gender-based power and challenging it politically, ushering in the great triumphs that made women's lives today possible -- from reproductive rights to Title IX to laws against sexual assault and domestic violence.

ad_icon

But its shortcomings grew more visible with wear: Second wave theory and practice tended toward humorlessness. The movement often saw men and women in opposition (rather than seeing sex discrimination as the enemy). It sometimes viewed domesticity and family life as a trap rather than a potential source of joy for both sexes. It could be puritanical about sexuality, and it often cast a skeptical eye on what it saw as women's frivolous pursuit of romance, fun and fashion.

Then, she goes to describe third-wave feminism as demonstrated by Cosmo editor Helen Gurley Brown and, yes, the Sex and the City characters, and notes that it's pretty much won out for now. But she ends the article with this:

The fact is, we know the answers to Western women's problems: The way is mapped out, the time for theory is pretty much over. We know the laws and the policies we need to achieve full equality. What we lack is a grass-roots movement that will drive the political will. "Lipstick" or lifestyle feminism won't produce that movement alone.

As Scanlon puts it: "Ever the optimist, [brown] chose to see pleasure where others saw danger, allies where others saw oppressors, and opportunities where others saw obstacles. If other feminists could be faulted for overemphasizing the ways in which women were victimized, Helen Gurley Brown can be faulted for underemphasizing women's workplace and personal challenges."

Surely we can find a way between the merely personal and the mostly political -- a synthesis of Brown and Friedan.

I wholeheartedly agree. Second-wave feminism is at its worst when it politicizes the truly personal, and third-wave feminism is at its worse when it's too concerned about the proper application of lipstick to be bothered with the political. IMO, whether or not you wear lipstick shouldn't be a political issue unless you get fired over it, and then we should still be smart, aware and organized enough to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree. Second-wave feminism is at its worst when it politicizes the truly personal, and third-wave feminism is at its worse when it's too concerned about the proper application of lipstick to be bothered with the political. IMO, whether or not you wear lipstick shouldn't be a political issue unless you get fired over it, and then we should still be smart, aware and organized enough to do something about it.

I haven't spent a lot of time studying feminist theories so I couldn't comment on the definitions of different forms of feminism but the conclusions drawn seem fairly reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it often cast a skeptical eye on what it saw as women's frivolous pursuit of romance, fun and fashion.

:stunned:

This is the same Naomi Wolf who wrote The Beauty Myth, right? She must have had quite a change of heart... so I'm not sure about the disingenuousness of referring to "it" as if she wasn't one of "it"s main proponents... if you've changed your mind then say so, don't blame it all on those other people.

*note for those who have not read it - The Beauty Myth is a rather OTT castigation of the fashion industry as a deliberate plot to enslave all women

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

I think Wolf was, in 1992, really getting at the women's magazine and fashion industry, so while her saying anything positive about Brown is kind of striking, it's different to criticize the industry than women who apparently freely go about choosing to wear high heels, etc., unless you want to get into false consciousness issues. Wolf's thing has always been that women should have the choice to wear whatever they want, and look however they want.

And a good portion of the book was devoted to dress in the workplace and sexual harassment (the double bind therein), and she's not saying anything to indicate that those aren't still real and serious problems that need to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my burning question remains, does gender equality mean abandoning traditional gender roles, and if so, why have I never been asked out on a date?

the power is right there for the taking, ladies. I'm free on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. What in the world do the upper-class white women featured in Sex in the City have to do with third wave feminism? Third wave feminism was about minority and non-western groups reclaiming feminism from the white euroamerican upper class, and is frankly the antithesis of this "lipstick" stuff your talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. What in the world do the upper-class white women featured in Sex in the City have to do with third wave feminism? Third wave feminism was about minority and non-western groups reclaiming feminism from the white euroamerican upper class, and is frankly the antithesis of this "lipstick" stuff your talking about.

"Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may mean in the context of sex"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may mean in the context of sex"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

Huh. I guess I stand corrected; I've always seen sex-positivity as a distinct phenomena from third-wave feminism. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne
I'm confused. What in the world do the upper-class white women featured in Sex in the City have to do with third wave feminism? Third wave feminism was about minority and non-western groups reclaiming feminism from the white euroamerican upper class, and is frankly the antithesis of this "lipstick" stuff your talking about.

That's Naomi Wolf talking about it, not me - I'm not publishing articles in the Washington Post, last I checked.

As far as the definition, there's no global ministry of culture nailing these terms down. Wolf was once herself called the leading figure in third wave feminism, indicating it clearly had a different meaning back in 1992 as well. Since then it's been used to describe Bell Hooks and other feminists like her, as well as Camille Paglia and Katie Roiphe (who I would just call fake feminists), but here the usage means these "lifestyle" post-feminists.

Personally, I dislike the usage for minority and non-western (and lower-class women, who are usually included in this as well) feminists, because it implies that they weren't there from the start of the movement, when in fact it was just that their voices weren't heard as well as they maybe should have been until later. They are properly, IMO, a part of second-wave feminism - to call them otherwise is to make them disappear from the history that they were rightly a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I dislike the usage for minority and non-western (and lower-class women, who are usually included in this as well) feminists, because it implies that they weren't there from the start of the movement, when in fact it was just that their voices weren't heard as well as they maybe should have been until later. They are properly, IMO, a part of second-wave feminism - to call them otherwise is to make them disappear from the history that they were rightly a part of.

The point is that minority and non-western voices were not heard in the dominate discourse of second wave feminism, which was very much centered on the white, western upper class. Third wave feminism is about reclaiming that voice, both in the past and in the present. I find it interesting that the middle/upper class white perspective in this thread seems to be focused on third wave feminism as a sex-positive movement rather than a shift towards including the experiences of other groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

third wave feminism as a sex-positive movement rather than a shift towards including the experiences of other groups.

Er, my understanding, not from any academic study of feminism (funny how colleges that are 2/3 male don't offer a single women's studies class :P) but from reading self-described third wave feminist blogs, is that third wave feminism includes both aspects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh goodness, gender theory. Now if only I remembered more from my social theory courses. However, I do remember enough to agree with tzanth here:

The point is that minority and non-western voices were not heard in the dominate discourse of second wave feminism, which was very much centered on the white, western upper class. Third wave feminism is about reclaiming that voice, both in the past and in the present. I find it interesting that the middle/upper class white perspective in this thread seems to be focused on third wave feminism as a sex-positive movement rather than a shift towards including the experiences of other groups.

I've definitely noticed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raidne, did you mean anything in particular when you referred to second wave feminism as second wave feminism and third wave feminism as 'so-called' third wave feminism? That stuck out at me for some reason.

I find it interesting that the middle/upper class white perspective in this thread seems to be focused on third wave feminism as a sex-positive movement rather than a shift towards including the experiences of other groups.

Dammit. I was only skimming the thread and totally missed that was even part of the discussion.

I guess what I'm saying is, 'gee, that is interesting. I seem to have a blind spot there'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for clarification, if third-wave feminism is about reclaiming the term for non-western/minority/poor people who had no voice in the second wave, what is the term for the type of feminism we are discussing in this thread?

I always thought that third-wave was about including all women in feminism, those mentioned before, and the women who were perfectly content to be stay at home moms, or just wanted to wear stylie clothes and make-up, and were ostracized from the second wave movement for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for clarification, if third-wave feminism is about reclaiming the term for non-western/minority/poor people who had no voice in the second wave, what is the term for the type of feminism we are discussing in this thread?

I always thought that third-wave was about including all women in feminism, those mentioned before, and the women who were perfectly content to be stay at home moms, or just wanted to wear stylie clothes and make-up, and were ostracized from the second wave movement for it.

I've little academic training or background in feminist theory, but I did find this recent column fairly interesting. From what I can tell she does seem to be saying feminism needs to adopted a broader approach to the movement and that different methods with somewhat different goals should be embraced.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have enough information to participate in a scholarly debate on the issue but gender roles/equality has been on my mind recently.

I wonder whether we can ever have a gender blind society simply because I think the mating dance tends to sabotage such efforts.

For example: I am not very competitive in personal relationships but I know a lot of men are. If I meet a man and I'm interested in him, I would not want to risk turning him off by beating him. (I'm thinking specifically of a game of darts at the bar in which I was mortified to have won--and I'm not that good.)

I would never 'throw' the game deliberately but I just wouldn't try very hard/the effort I put into it would be in proportion to his skill level. If he was clearly, unquestionably kicking my ass I would try my best but if I was in any danger of winning I would relax into a more cavalier attitude.

I don't see this as selling out or being fake. I simply don't care who wins so just in case he does care, I would rather he walk away pleased than petulant. Competitiveness is a common and usually harmless flaw for a man to have. I wouldn't want to throw away a perfectly good man on something as trivial as him needing to win in simple, casual ways. Once I get to know him better I can decide whether he has a bona fide problem with competitiveness and whether that is a deal breaker or not.

This is only one example. A man may be turned off by a woman who is too smart, too strong, too tall. A woman may be turned off by a man who is too sensitive, too passive, too short. Forget the fashion industry, how do you get around the fact that it makes many men feel good to be bigger and stronger than the woman in his life?

Even if we all agree that such gender differences shouldn't matter, that we should all strive to be the most strong, smart, capable, sensitive version of ourselves possible, how do we get around the natural barriers which seem to make us want the yin/yang of hard/soft, etc? (one time a guy was hitting on me and complimented me on being 'soft'. I was horribly offended, I thought he was suggesting that I was weak. I didn't realize at the time that he thought it was a compliment.)

It's hard to imagine that all of the complimentary qualites that we look for are a complete fiction of culture. It's harder to imagine the slate wiped clean. Why? Because when it comes down to it, would you rather have a mate or be stubbornly authentic and solitary. It's easy enough to say you should be stubbornly authentic and still find a mate but a lot of people aren't willing to risk it.

I'm pretty stubbornly authentic but it does make me sad that I'm ineligible to go out with a lot of men simply because I'm not demure and feminine enough. Even though I abhor artifice in general, I'm not completely immune to the consequences of being myself.

I'm tempted to say that gender equalization cannot happen without a generation who is willing to accept the possible failure to find a mate in order to break the barriers. Women who are willing to bow and cater to the patriarchal stereotypes have always been a thorn in the side of the feminists. I feel like we are left with a Neil Gaiman 'Dream of a thousand cats' scenario.

Or rather, I am put in mind of a Pantera concert I attended when I was underage and the mosh pit was 21+. We were in the balcony, 2nd row. We wanted the front row. The guys in the front row tried to rally us to rush the security guards and break into the pit. We nodded and said 'yeah, we're with you' and when they gave the signal and charged, we simply hopped down into their front row.

Any attempt to break open the gender barriers and be defiantly strong, smart and capable is inevitably undermined by those who will simply say 'go ahead, more men for me.' And it will work. The guys who rushed the guards got plucked back out of the pit but when they came back upstairs we had their seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly most of us live in a sexist society. As such one cannot really be blamed for giving into traditionalist stereotypes. Is such behavior feminist though? I would say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Celtigo, that article is kind of what I am trying to say. Though I, as a western woman, obviously have nothing on the struggles of the women in the article. This line, however, struck me as pointing to what I was going for:

This version of feminism - the notion that women can claim equality and still have a valued role in the home, prize family above all, and view rights in the context of community and spirituality - seems like a much-needed corrective to some of Western feminism's shortcomings.

I still don't know the answer to my question, however, what is the feminism being discussed thus far, if not third wave. The only bit of clarification I can assume comes from this part of the article Celtigo linked:

So the leadership role is shifting to women in the developing world. Their agenda is more pressing, and their problems, frankly, are far more serious than ours - which makes it much more urgent for them to develop theories appropriate to the challenges they face.

Is this it? If so, what about the women like my aunt? She was a militant feminist in the sixties and seventies, but she secretly wanted to have children that entire time, but didn't, and was afraid to admit it to her friends in the movement because of how they would react to her. How do we classify her, and all of the modern women who call themselves feminists while they are wearing dresses, getting married, and having babies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...