The New Feminists
Thought you might be interested in this article which appeared in the UK's The Times today - 'The New Feminists.'
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The New Feminists.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11061
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
This certainly is a complicated issue. I agree that finding a way for feminism to let go of its bad rap would be great, and that issues have changed since the 1970s... but all the underlying capitalist, sexist, racist, classist crap hasn't magically gone away, and it still effects the lives of women in a bad, bad way. It seems like some of the women in that article are choosing to ignore the larger problems that still exist underneath these "new" issues. By refusing to look too deep into the issue, they are not likely to gain a full understanding of it. Third wave also strikes me as a very upper-class movement, too. These women are lucky enough to worry about whether they can wear heels and still be a feminist, when other women are worrying if they can feed their family with the small amount of money they made MAKING those heels. In my opinion, the next wave of feminism should be looking more globally. I'm also bothered by the request made at the end for our foremothers to "step aside," without much acknowledgment of their hard work that got women the rights they have today in the Western world.
yeah, i think that's pretty shallow and callous to tell your forerunners to step aside. not to mention arrogant.
"It’s like, we’re grateful for what you did, but it’s time for you to hand over."
that kind of attitude makes young feminists look like spoiled brats. who the hell are these people to tell the older feminists to shut up and make way? that's like turning around to spit in your mother's twat. sorry for the visual, but this makes me so damned mad. it's pure lazy anti-intellectualism. and i also wonder if these "new feminists" who try to pass themselves off as edgy have simply lost their spines...as in, they keep their fingerprints off the unpopular issues because they're afraid of annoying their friends.
and this also annoys me.
"Jordan may have fashioned herself as a caricature of male fantasy, but she is also an extremely rich and successful working mother — and what is unfeminist about that?"
um...being rich doesn't make you a feminist. and even less so if you got rich through objectifying yourself - and, consequently, all women with you.
I think it makes sense.
It's like having a republican grandmother. Yes, she did a lot for your mother, and yes she helped you out with your college tuition, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with her when she tells you that homosexuality is just not okay and she doesn't think you should be dating that black guy.
I can appreciate what second-wave feminism did for me without having to agree with their bullshit ideas about sexuality. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence but he also owned slaves. If I say slavery is wrong does that mean I'm being "bratty?"
It would be a huge disservice to the movement to stop questioning and thinking about feminism. I'm not going to blindly accept something because people who believed in it were important a while ago. That would be fucking stupid.
Don't think for a moment that what you're saying is any better than the Bushies whining about how criticizing the government is unpatriotic.
If you don't agree with their arguments, you can talk about why. You haven't read their arguments because it's easier for you to assume that they're just lazy and spineless. Which is pretty lazy of you.
I don't think that wearing heels or being a model is anti-feminist. Does that mean that I'm spitting in my mother's twat?
hi there. i think maybe i haven't made my point clearly enough...i am NOT against young feminists or feminists from the third wave. i'm taking issue with the attitude displayed in the sentiment asking older feminists to step aside. that's what i think is dismissive and arrogant. we can certainly disagree with the movers and shakers before us without essentially ordering them to make way.
Semantics.
I think that second-wave ideas are outdated and the time when second-wave feminism could cause social change is pretty much gone. The woman in the article seems to think the same way. She just phrased it in a way you found "bratty."
Wow, I'm not sure that this is a difference that can be chalked up to semantics. There is a big difference between a fuck-them-they're-so-outdated attitude and noting that times have changed and so should feminism. The latter does not require kicking anyone to the curb and being disrespectful. Inclusiveness is a good thing.
The only difference is bluntness.
Which honestly, I get. She's very very third-wave, and that means that she gets a lot of shit from second-wavers. Get enough of that and you can kind of despise second-wave feminism. She probably should have been more tactful, but I can see why she didn't bother.
Honestly, there have been some days when reading feminist writing has kind of made me want to throw the feminist label away completely.
I'm sorry, but it's not. Disagreeing with someone's ideas is very different from thinking that their life and work has no value and is completely disposable. As pcwhite noted, you don't make any progress by being dismissive and arrogant toward those who did a lot of work and took a lot of risks to make your lifestyle possible. Of course this doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but treating them like trash is unacceptable. I don't agree with second-wave feminists much of the time, but I'm not prepared to treat them like that. And I wouldn't treat my Republican, super religious, conservative, misogynistic grandmother that way either. I don't listen to her or live my life in the way she advocates, but I also don't treat her like shit.
I have the feeling that this is more about holding on to the last few gender stereotypes under which a relatively few, usually elite women can continue to benefit, without having to give up any of the previous gains made in the movement.
It feels somewhat akin to collusion to me...
I read this article as more of an admission that some feminists are working in nontraditional fields, but also applying feminist thought to it. Like, starting a union to apply equal rights and pay to models or both genders (where men actually make less than women), or making a fashion zine with a pro-woman outlook. The article isn't all that well written, but I think it's what they're trying to get at with this.
Do I think they picked the wrong people for displaying that and do I think the article as an anti-feminist tinge? Hell yes, I do. The writer is skeptical of feminism by my reading and I think that really tinged into the way these women are described.
This article talks about good things, but misses the mark on what the real significance of it is.
I love how the claim is that the pageant "wasn’t about men. It’s for girls." Right, because girls love to strut around in bikinis that are glued into their asscracks wearing shoes that are killing their feet just for the hell of it. In fact, if there were no men around, that's what they'd do all day. 'Cause the (internalized) male gaze has nothing to do with it.
And I agree that this is true, "It’s an extinct image of feminism — that you can’t be both frivolous and serious or care about clothes and read books at the same time" but add the caveat that acting frivolous all the time is a great way to prevent yourself from ever being taken seriously and reinforcing the harmful gender stereotypes in our culture. As far as I'm concerned, getting our society to take women seriously is still a goal of feminism.
I don't think any woman has the responsibility to be serious. The whole idea stinks of "You got your rights, now you better behave." I was owed those rights. I don't feel any need to prove myself worthy of them.
It's fine to dislike people who are never, ever, ever serious. I just don't think it's at all okay to claim that women have a responsibility to make people take them seriously.
I don't think I said that women have a responsibility to be serious. I just think that IF women want to be taken seriously by our society, acting in a frivolous manner all the time is probably not the best approach. And I think it's useful to recognize that women are socialized to act silly and trivial in order to avoid making teh poor menz feel threatened. There's nothing in a woman's biology that dictates never-ending frivolity.
That makes sense.
Of course it depends on if you mean women in general, or women as a whole. No one, regardless of gender, is going to be taken seriously is they act silly all the time. And they shouldn't be.
I don't think that women need to make an attempt to not be silly just so that women as a whole can be taken seriously. People who judge an entire group on the actions of a few are assholes, and I feel no need to cater to them.
Yeah, to me I guess it's a systemic thing, not an individual sort of thing. I hate to watch girls hit middle school and realize that they're expected to act frivolous for the sake of male egos. I remember friends of mine who were good athletes suddenly acting all helpless and giggly when certain male athletes were around, but being perfectly capable and coherent when they weren't. Then there's my niece, who is a child prodigy in the animation courses she's taken, who helps the guys in her classes and gives them advice on their projects, but feels the need to act all flakey around them. The only way I can explain it to myself is that she doesn't want to be "one of the guys" and is trying to assert her femininity, and the way she's been socialized to do that minimizes her talents and intelligence. It sucks to see this happening when I know what these girls are really capable of, but for some reason they can't just let themselves be respected for who they are. So I guess it's the way women are socialized to behave that pisses me off, not the behavior of individual women themselves. I don't know if that explains it better or not, but I'm definitely not into going around preaching at women about how they should act all serious all the time. And I agree with you that that would not exactly be a feminist approach. But I think that critiquing systemic bullshit is.
The thing about articles like this is, with all the issues feminism encompasses-equal pay, reproductive rights, domestic violence, etc--why do some people seem to reduce it all to whether or not feminists think it's ok to wear makeup and be in beauty pageants or not? Even I've had friends say things to me like "Before I met you I thought feminism meant you couldn't wear lipgloss or flirt with guys. But it's really cool and important." Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I changed your view of feminism, I'm glad you now see you can go to the Sephora on your way to the big pro-choice rally, but why is this idea still so prevalent that feminists "just don't want women to be pretty?" And that this is somehow all that feminism is about?
Yeah, it's a great way to trivialize feminism and make it this non-threatening little tea party that "the girls" are having.
A quote from the article says:
“As a woman, you can’t not buy shoes and wear dresses. Plus all of that stuff is fun — it doesn’t take away from your power as a woman.”
Huh? I guess I'm not a woman even though I have not worn dresses or high heels for more than 20 years. And I have discovered a myriad of non-fashion related activities that are fun.
Sorry to be a bit snarky about a single comment from a long article but I get so tired of the attitude that you have to love shoes, dresses, and makeup to be a real woman. It simply permeates most of the culture (feminist web sites are a rare respite from this view).
Do these women really think that their clothing and makeup "choices" have been made without being influenced by society's view of the appropriate role for women? If wearing makeup, dresses and stiletto heels is so much fun then why does society frown when men do it? There's even a special name for it, transvestite, because this behavior is seen as abnormal. It's "normal" for women to wear these items but highly abnormal for men to do so. I don't care what other women wear but I would love to live in a society where all these options were offered equally to both men and women.
I know that there are more important causes to fight. And yet, it would be nice to eliminate the double standards in our society instead of giggling about how the "girls" (really? are they all under 18?) just want to dress up and have fun. It's not a big deal compared to other issues but it is not as simplistic as it is portrayed in the article.
I'll end with another quote from the author of the article:
Beauty is power.
Well, there's your problem. ;-) If that's the only approach you know for acquiring power then it makes sense that you would encourage conforming to societal norms on how women should look. I prefer to look for other sources of power as well as other kinds of beauty.
Exactly. But don't you know that it's natural for women to be obsessed with their clothes and makeup? I mean, we're biologically determined to buy shoes and wear dresses. We can't not do it and still be women. Puke.
lol. That's why I hated Sex and the City. Because it makes people think that if I don't like pink,frilly things I must be a man or a mutant or something. I would be much happier if the article had said there are all kinds of feminists, some go gaga over shoes and others don't. This article only reinforces the idea that there is one kind of woman and one kind of "cool" modern feminist. If I don't shave my armpits then I must be part of those uncool, old, dried-up feminists. Ugh.