Author
|
Topic: Mythical Third Wave?
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 12 October 2001 03:35 PM
If I may break into your thread. Here is my totally misinformed opinion.wave 1 (actually starts with suffrage movement) *achieve status as persons *achieve right not to be beaten (still working on that one ) *achieve right to own property *achieve right to work in any job or capcity *achieve right to controll own sexual destiny (ie. recognize marital rape, pill controls pregancy) wave2 *denounce anything that remotely seems to objectify women *fight for equal pay *fight for right to credit in own name *reexamine 'ladylike' (ie women shouldn't smoke on the street, drink from the bottle or vaccuum without pearls) *put the saran wrap back in the kitchen where it belongs. Wave3 * sometimes dressing sexy is fun *controlling sexual destiny includes right to be seductive *break glass ceiling ( possibly with high heel) *right to have children and still be CEO Dare I say though that often 3rd wavers forget the intensity of the fight and daring of the 1st and 2nd waves.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 12 October 2001 05:06 PM
Now, y'see, you guys, that's not the way I remember all this. I'm thinking back to late 60s, early 70s groups, both caucuses within other political groups and strictly women's consciousness-raising/other groups. I would be prepared to admit that our thinking about racism especially was raw and only just a-building, but it was powerfully, unambiguously political. Ever since the late 70s, it's seemed to me that the complicating and divisive factor in women's politics has been the ever-adaptable North American if-you-can't-beat-'em-co-opt-'em machine. The Third Wave I've heard most about emphasizes all the sexy stuff, the I-can-be-a-CEO-and-still-wear-a-thong stuff, and keeps forgetting that the corporate shills who market that stuff (many of the mainstream women's columnists, eg) have absolutely no stats behind them! Yeah, sure. Every young woman is now free to make middle-management with no effort at all, so why worry about chipping your nail polish on the way up any more? We didn't want to make CEO: we wanted an end to CEOs. Naomi Wolf working on that?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 12 October 2001 05:15 PM
Which brings us around to socialist feminism and Marxist feminism, which, admittedly, was very second wave. Another big thing in the third wave is ecofeminism from what I understand. That's kind of a neat thing too. The thing is, there are no absolute boundaries for each issue that feminists have undertaken. All three waves dealt with most issues, and there is nothing that is exclusively an issue of only one particular wave (well, except for suffrage, I suppose). Even in the first wave there were anti-racist feminists (although they weren't really identified as such). It's just that they weren't listened to at all by the mainstream feminist groups, that's all. Oh, and Lesbian feminism, how did I forget that? It got its start in the second wave, but even then there was a lot of mainstream opposition to sexuality issues being combined with feminism - Betty Friedan called lesbians the "lavendar menace" because she figured that they were too radical and they would give feminism a bad name. But in the third wave, there's much more of an acceptance in mainstream feminism of lesbian issues being just as important as any other. So while you can't say that lesbian feminism is only confined to the third wave, I see it as having come into its own in the third wave, while having been introduced in the second wave. Just like reproductive rights were introduced in the first wave, but really came into its own in the second wave. I always see feminist issues as belonging to this wave or that one when mainstream feminists begin to embrace them.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 12 October 2001 05:18 PM
Oh the topic.I would say that the Wave is more a matter of numbers and comfort with the "We", and less an agenda thing. Of course, we now differentiate the Waves according to agendas, and Earthmom and Michelle are not wrong. But what I think ultimately decides the emergence of a Wave is what WingNut said : the invasion. When a huge group of aliens/women feel utmost urgency about women's issues - whatever their current definition - and are eager to act, that's when a Wave happens. Some sort of revolutionary zeal is necessary; a lot of thinking (and rhetoric) about history; and a strong emphasis on building commonness as opposed to being in love with differences. I've said this many times before, but so-called women's issues or feminist issues are today perceived as less legitimate than (or at best derivative from) economic problems. Although there is a significant publishing and university (sub)culture of feminist thinking, there is not a single feminism-defined issue among major concerns of the public in Canada or the US. (And I am really looking forward to be refuted in this.) There has been some chatter about "affirmative action", but nobody even bothers aguing against it now. Nobody utters the word "patriarchy" anymore - anywhere, although many good points about it could be made at these pre-war and war times. Rare are the people who use "sisterhood" in a non-scornful way (call me pathetic, but I love the word). Even performers of Vagina Monologues put a lot of effort in stressing that "they're not feminists"... Valerie Solanas, your descendents were not worth the trouble, sister!
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 12 October 2001 05:33 PM
Sorry if I seemed to be shouting, grils.Tres, one of the reasons I have kept thinking about starting this thread but have then repeatedly drawn back is that in the past -- several decades ago, wasn't it, Michelle and earthmum? July, maybe? -- when a thread has begun to address feminism directly, we have instantly drawn the most amazing hostility. I still don't entirely know why -- it seems odd that feminism should be one of the hot-button issues on a site like this, but it was, at least. One of the ways of silencing creaky old-time feminists like me seemed to be to remind us that younger women were far less sexually insecure than we had been and thus much more entertaining -- well, I'm caricaturing a bit here, so I won't extend this -- but only a bit. To me, that actually looked like co-optation a bit -- 2nd Wave grim, men won't enjoy talking to you; 3rd Wave sexy, see how much more the men enjoy thinking of liberated women that way ... You see my problem? Sheesh. Audra talked me into this. Audra: you have some speaking to do. Audra ... Audra?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554
|
posted 12 October 2001 05:47 PM
*carefully dips feet in the water*a) I really don't like these labels, but I'm no expert. It seems to me that feminism is way too diverse to be divided into only three categories. But I dunno. b) That being said, I don't think the whole thing about the "3rd wave" is that they're sexy, at least not for me. I think it's more about not blaming ME personally for the problems of womankind. It's easier to rally behind an idea when you're not classified as the "enemy". *gets out of the water and runs away before I get myself shot* (I tried to stay out of a thread about feminism. I'm totally speaking from my own position here. Don't hate me!!!!)
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 12 October 2001 06:05 PM
WOW, Skdadl. Power does move in mysterious ways. I would have loved to see that kind of classification of women by men on these boards - perhaps there's still a thread that somebody can private-message me about?... On second thought, nothing unusual. Disabling solidarity among women is an old trick of patriarchy. Female internalized misogyny - another one. But let me stick to the topic in a more direct way. When I read old accounts and hear 2nd Wave feminists speak about that age, most of them had a strong feeling that world was soon going to be changed large scale. They trusted their actions, they felt they made sense. Another thing missing for a possible 3rd way. What moves me, a 2001 in-between-the-waves feminist, beyond my ever present political sarcasm (perhaps "irony" is a better, Rortian word) is an act of blind faith, and not a rational calculation that things will inevitably change if A follows B when C. My feminist predecessors were "progressivists" as a matter of rationality. Me, I don't have grand schemes to pull out of the hat. [ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Trespasser ]
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 12 October 2001 06:25 PM
Mediaboy, are you going to let a pseudofelinoid upstage you for jumping into water? *splooshes in, and splashes about with all paws* Anyway... Here's a nugget for y'all: Think back to the year 1973 in the USA and 1981 in Canada. What happened? Beginning in 1973, real wages went on a twenty-five-year dive in the USA, and in 1981, flatlined in Canada. So, this brings us to two-earner households. The interesting thing is that the increase in the female participation rate in the workforce has been a double-edged sword: On the one hand an extra earner helped bring in extra income to offset the impact of inflation on a stagnant paycheck. On the other hand, the increase in the supply of labor drove down the average real wage. So my question to you non-socialist feminists, is this: How do we get out of this bind wherein greater participation in the things men have traditionally appropriated as their own end up creating a situation where one can end up running faster just to stay in the same place? [ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 12 October 2001 07:32 PM
Now that WingNut understands the third wave, maybe he can offer something useful.I note there is a certain ambiguity with regard the third wave. This could be because, how does one improve upon success? With the battle won, the issue is consolidating. What is most important? Racism? Third world issues? Pay equity? Any of the other pressing issues? There is also the problem of the generation(s) raised in success. This is a common problem and is not limited to feminism. A group of people labour hard and overcome great obstacles to achieve goals thought beyond reach. While they are proud of their success and achievement, their offspring are not. The children take the success for granted. They were born into it. They even reject the politics of thier parents, because, why do they need it? The generation that returned from the Second World War -- those raised in depression -- gave us Employment Insurance, Health Care, better unions and labour legislation and far too many benefits to list. The children of that generation are raised in a land of plenty. They are of good health, they have many of the material comforts, they enjoy subsidized post-secondary education. When it comes time to pass along these benefits to the next generation, they balk: They did it all themselves without any help from anyone! Without having to struggle, they forget there was a struggle. See what I mean? Or am I rambling?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
distantcousin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1570
|
posted 12 October 2001 07:56 PM
new here and just came across this topic...did anyone read the interview between Kathleen Hanna and Steinem? [i think it was in Bust?] very informative and basically they came to the conclusion that they were different leaves on the same branch. Hanna respected what came before her and Steinem was excited about the future. So i thought there really was no waves? but i have experienced the divisions, but those seem to be personal divisions, not generational... i'm suprised no one has mentioned the DIY movement, that has also existed in both time periods, similar content, just different aesthetics re: ecofeminism [carson = silent spring, women were always involved in the environmental movement, just undervalued]
From: toronto | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 12 October 2001 09:14 PM
quote: This place is crowded with men...So just a note. DrC, you troll extraordinaire. This is a very good one: "The average real wage went down because women entered the work force."
Well, it's not the sole factor, but it was a contributing factor because of the supply-demand dynamics of the labor force. If you have the same demand, higher supply, the wage drops or unemployment rises. Thorny problem. No easy solution. Well, Ok, there is one, but the ecological sustainability of this is in doubt: Full employment.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 13 October 2001 01:24 AM
My friend Katherine, who is in her 30's, wrote this for my site, about being a second wave feminist with third wave feminist friends. I like it a lot. Skdadl, have you read Manifesta? It's a really good book legitamising 3rd Wave Feminism. Not that we should have to. Here's my scoop. The existence of Third Wave Feminism: 1. Is real,and I think it is pretty patronizing of anyone to say that it isn't. 2. Is responsible for all sorts of cool things, like Marigold, the Radical Cheerleaders, and Le Tigre. 3. Is in no way intended to critisize 2nd Wave Feminism. It's really late, and I'm really tired, and there's nothing like having one of your life passions referred to as "mythical" to cause you to lose all lucidity, so I'm going to go to sleep now. Signed: A sex-positive, non-shaving, lipstick wearing, frankenboobed, political activist, vibrator owning, third. wave. feminist. [ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: audra estrones ]
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 13 October 2001 02:25 AM
quote: What if we grafted the economic structure of the 1950s onto a 2000s society, so that women or men could choose to go out and work while the spouse remained at home?
Then that would mean lawyers wouldn't be able to marry doctors, or labourers wouldn't be able to marry professors, or cashiers wouldn't be able to marry taxi drivers, etc., because you wouldn't be able to have two people who work outside the home in a nuclear family. Okay, that was facetious. But Dr. Conway, I think most people realize that since women on average make quite a bit less money than men, and since women are the ones who give birth, and since everyone doesn't have an enlightened attitude about men and women being equally equipped to care for children, that we know who would usually be the one pressured to stay home with the kids in a one-income family societal norm. What if two people get married and neither of them want to stay home? How would they fit into the one-income family model? Gloria Steinem wrote a fantastic piece about working women, and she describes how women would try to justify working outside the home with the women-work-because-they-have-to argument rather than women who choose to work outside the home because it makes them feel fulfilled and happy. No one questions why a man works - it's assumed that no man would feel fulfilled without working for an income. But the assumption is still that women with children who work outside the home only do it because they have to. Well, in some cases that might be true. But there are lots of cases where women have quite fulfilling careers outside the home, and they choose to do so rather being forced to out of economic necessity. And not every family is going to fit neatly into the model where if the woman likes working outside, then the man will want to become the homemaker. So I don't like the idea of a 1950's model of one-income families with the new twist of the man or woman working but not both, either. Because you're still going to be requiring that one person stays home when they may not want to (if they want to, more power to them, I can respect that). And I would be willing to bet, as mentioned above, that more often than not, that person will likely be the woman.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 13 October 2001 10:50 AM
First, a heartfelt apology to Audra for wounds I certainly never intended to inflict: quote:
Skdadl, have you read Manifesta? It's a really good book legitamising 3rd Wave Feminism. Not that we should have to. Here's my scoop. The existence of Third Wave Feminism: 1. Is real, and I think it is pretty patronizing of anyone to say that it isn't.
First, I simply assume that feminism persists and that any woman who says she's a feminist is a feminist. Age wouldn't automatically convince me of much -- in fact, I'm one woman who's still puzzled that it's being used to separate, confine, divide feminists. Given those assumptions, I hope you can see that my brief reference to what I know mainly as a media phenomenon was in no way directed against you personally, and I don't know quite what to do with the response my request for information and correction keeps drawing. I freely admit to having been blind-sided by every major social movement of my entire adult life (the last 40 years): so imagine me spending much of the 90s picking up on the Third Wave mainly from TV, the national newspapers, and the young cousins. Imagine me asking them over and over, So, like, what's with this sex-positive and lipstick thing? I'm sex positive; I wear lipstick ... (Well, ok, I own lipstick; these days I'm usually a little too harried to remember to put it on, but that's just anecdotal.) And imagine me never getting an answer. I mean, I get answers, and I just tried doing examples of them by ventriloquism, but I've decided that's not fair -- I can't help but sound as though I'm parodying them ... because they aren't, after all, answers. I did read Katherine Robinson, who is describing the women's movement of the 70s and some preoccupations, or a particular kind of politicization, that are/is already different from the women's groups I knew. Perhaps age does mean something; perhaps we're just proving again how really old! I am. Anyway, I just don't remember women's politics as quite this grim, although I certainly remember the 70s as a grim and increasingly grimmer decade, and perhaps the increasing personalization of left politics generally during that decade (which I missed after 1974) produced some of the painful self-consciousness Robinson describes. When I think back to what most moved my cohort -- or maybe just me and my friends -- about women's liberation, I don't think first, if at all, of the high-profile American media stars. For me, the single most important achievement of the late-60s movement was the Boston Women's Collective's publication (in 1971?) of the first edition of Our Bodies, Our Selves, a book that didn't shake up just women but the entire medical profession -- if you'd visited a doctor in the 1960s, you would not think that claim an exaggeration at all. I didn't know anyone who was paying much attention to Steinem or Friedan, although we were certainly reading de Beauvoir. And as for men as a factor in the construction of how we conceive of feminism: I do perceive (dimly) that this is maybe where some of us are dividing: that is, men, how a feminist thinks of them and relates to them, does seem to be a factor to some feminists now -- where it just plain doesn't to me. Why would that be? I dunno. I take 'em as I find 'em; it's true that I wouldn't waste five minutes on a misogynist, but otherwise I tend to react to men viscerally, drawing close or not, I think in pretty much the same way I do to women -- who become friends or not often for reasons I'd be hard put to explain entirely without reference to viscera or hormones or nerves. Why would the way I feel towards the men I know in my real life influence my feminism any more than it influences the way I read Diderot? Well, this is now becoming formless, an indication of my utter puzzlement -- once again -- at claims that still sound to me like charges against me -- except so indirect that I have never been able to grasp them in terms of anything except their superficial media manifestations. I knew I didn't want to revisit this, and so ...
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 13 October 2001 02:48 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, waittaminute, Audra. quote: Third Wave is real,and I think it is pretty patronizing of anyone to say that it isn't.
So, what are the manifestations of the Third Wave? What are its crucial texts? Organizations? How does it shake the Western world? How does it influence the mainstream politics? How does it influence the Zeitgeist? How does it change lives of a great number of women at the same time? Feminism is alive and well, thanks God, but contemporary feminists do not act in a Wave-y way. I'd be the first one to salute a Feminist Wave. What am I saying, I pray, moan, beg for a new Feminist Wave every minute of the day. But fooling ourselves that this what we're living in is a Wave would be weirdly complacent. quote: Third Wave is responsible for all sorts of cool things, like Marigold, the Radical Cheerleaders, and Le Tigre.
OK, those things are cool, I concur, but they don't make a Wave by any stretch of imagination. quote: Third Wave is in no way intended to critisize 2nd Wave Feminism.
I'm OK with this, for I really think that a unique agenda is not an absolute must for a Wave. Nor is the Second Wave "sex-negative" and "vibrator-throwing" and "anti-lipstick": that's more a PR image crafted by its unfriendly male commentators. Nor will the Third Wave be "sex-positive" etc. in response. Now, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. All I could pick up about that book was that it was authored by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, and published in 2000. I honestly don't think that it is one of the defining works of a Wave, or that a bunch of young women swear on it, or that it initiated new forms of activism, and so on. Why? I've never heard anyone mentioning it, quoting from it, writing about it, exclaiming that they passionately re-read it. If there's anyone around who can tell me more about its importance and charms, I'd be thrilled to hear it. Maybe Audra will, if she doesn't hate me at this point, huh, will you, Auders? I just think that we shouldn't say Hop! before we actually jump, you know? That's all. [ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Trespasser ]
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 13 October 2001 07:58 PM
My sentiments exactly, Earthmother. I always think dress sizes are a silly classification.But have you noticed that even measurement sizes (like size 32 waist) don't really correspond to 32 inches for the most part? I find that annoying. In larger size stores, they're especially guilty of this (when they're not calling a size 36 "1", a 40 "2" and a 44 "3", etc.) because usually if there's a size 34 or 36, the actual measurement of the clothing (or the person who will fit it) is much larger than 34 or 36 inches. I guess they're trying to fool fat chicks into thinking they're smaller than they really are. Please. What are we, stupid? I'm a grown up (I was just about to say "big girl" ). I can handle the truth. Just put the damn size on it, willya? But you're right about the size 1, 2, 3, etc. That DOES sound like you're buying kids' clothes. But you know, I think that's a dumb classification system for kids' clothes as well, because it's roughly based on age, but I don't know very many kids whose age directly corresponds with clothing size. My son's in a 4 right now (sometimes 3X if it's made long), and has been since the beginning of summer (when he was not quite 2 1/2). I always wish they did kids' clothes in width and length the way they do for men's jeans. Amir was always very large for his age in length. He was a bit chubby between 1 and 2 as well, but now he has lengthened out into tall and - well, not thin, but definitely not anything like chubby anymore. He's just a really big kid, height-wise. Size 3X usually fits him, but the length is often a little too short, or just right (but will likely not fit in a month or two). Sometimes the length fits but the waist is too small. Other times, the waist is just right, but the length is too short. You can't win sometimes. So I get size 4, and roll up the legs. Usually the waist is a little too large that way, but what the heck. Loose is in. As long as they stay up and I can perhaps get another season out of them, then I don't care. It would be a lot easier, though, if they would come up with a uniform size based on waist and height measurements though. Anyhow, back to the women's thing. Isn't that way of sizing just another way for fashion to tell women you have to be child-sized or at least child-like in order to be attractive? And Lalance, I think most of us already know that there are small women who are that way naturally. The problem isn't that those women exist. The problem is, when all women are told they have to look like those women (which in most cases is impossible) in order to be accepted. I would be just as annoyed if my size was the ideal, and naturally small women were told they had to look like me if they wanted to be beautiful.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 13 October 2001 08:15 PM
quote: I honestly don't think that it is one of the defining works of a Wave, or that a bunch of young women swear on it, or that it initiated new forms of activism, and so on. Why? I've never heard anyone mentioning it, quoting from it, writing about it, exclaiming that they passionately re-read it.
Well, I have. Sorry you haven't, but I fail to see how that negates it. That's such a weird arguement. For one thing, you do know a single person who has read it, since I have read it. I've also talked to women from Michele Landsberg's age to Penelope "Reluctant Hero" Jackson's, and both were blown away by it. If importance was judged by popularity, than the Backstreet Boys would be a lot more important to music than, say, The Modern Lovers, and I'd probably be nearly as outraged by that accusation. Skdadl: I think a lot of third wave feminists might be uncomfortable when asked to define the movement, because a lot of young women I know are lacking in confidence about their politics and ideals, especially when they feel they have to justify it. Trespasser: I am not complacent. I am not fooling myself. I'm sorry I didn't give you enough examples of Third Wave writings/events/documents/people to convince you. I will try again. The Third Wave Foundation, this review of Manifesta, Turbo Chicks: Talking Young Feminisms, Riotgrrrl, Venus Envy, all these good books, Sexing The Political, Chicks With Antlers, Hip Mama, The Girl Wide Web, Debbie Stoller, Kathleen Hanna, and and and and... Whatever.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 13 October 2001 08:30 PM
Well, I look forward to checking these websites and getting back to you. quote: If importance was judged by popularity
Of course not. What I did say was that importance is judged by influence. What gave me the reassurance that I have the right tool for measuring influence? I guess the unfounded arrogance acquired after spending last four years studying feminist theories. Which is wrong, I know. But what other ways for measuring the influence of a particular work are there, if not personal & academic research?
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 13 October 2001 09:26 PM
And there's another problem with feminism right there. You shouldn't have to have taken women's studies courses in university in order to be a "real" feminist. I think it's easy for people who are well read on feminist authors throughout all of history to look down on women who haven't done so. Not to bring up yet another feminist author to illustrate my point, but bell hooks writes about this kind of thing in several articles (can't think of the name right now), about there being a great divide between the feminist theorists and the women who just live it.Both are necessary. There are movements among feminists without formal feminist education to scorn the academics because they aren't seen as practical. And there is often an attitude among academics to look down on the feminists who are not formally educated on feminist thought. What a pity that is, that there should be this great divide, when we could all learn from each other. Anyhow. This is my thought on the third wave: it exists. I think it exists because I think there is a distinctly different flavour to feminist literature, thought, and political action now than there was in the second wave. There's a more postmodern feel to it - you don't have to be in this particular pigeon-hole to be a feminist. There is more introspection within the movement. There is a more punk feel to the movement these days than an establishment feel, if that helps (you know, the riot grrl idea, girl power, etc.). I think it can be argued that feminism done second-wave style HAS been dormant, and those who wonder whether the third wave is really a wave may feel they have a point - how many young women are there who proudly say, "I'm a feminist" without the "but" qualifier? However, I also think that sometimes second-wavers try to define the third wave by second-wave standards, and when the third wave shows insignificant results by those standards, then the third wave seems not to exist. For instance, membership in formal feminist organizations is way down from what I understand. Well, a big thing about second wavers was that they wanted to make feminist into an establishment thing. But third wavers have a more rebellious flavour to their activism, so formal feminist organizations may not be their thing. Therefore, the movement might not be able to be measured on those kinds of terms. Unfortunately, I think some third wavers have internalized the definition of second wave feminism that the patriarchy was hoping we'd swallow - that they were anti-sex, anti-fun, anti-men. So now, sometimes third wavers define themselves against the definition of second-wavers that was never really true - we're not anti-sex, anti-men like those second wavers were. See what I mean? Second wavers not seeing the third wave because it can't be measured in the same terms as the second wave. Third wavers feeling contemptuous of the second wave because a) they sometimes don't recognize the third wave and b) because many third wavers have accepted the stereotype of second wavers. Argh.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 13 October 2001 10:02 PM
Just a quick look at the sources because I gotta go grab something to eat soon. Audra said to Skdadl: quote: I think a lot of third wave feminists might be uncomfortable when asked to define the movement
Well, judging by this interview, the authors of Manifesta and the author of this article are too happy to provide one. Not only is defining the Third Wave this way: quote: So an intergenerational struggle has sprung forth between mothers and daughters. On the one side are Second Wavers who lashed out against their sexually limiting roles as wives and mothers in exchange for equal pay and egalitarian partnerships. And on the other are Third Wavers who, perhaps dismissive of the battles fought and often won by their mothers, aspire to be Madonna, the woman who rose to fame as the ultimate virgin whore. Third Wavers, say Baumgardner and Richards, want to continue the fight for equal rights, but not to the detriment of their sexuality. They want to be both subject and object, when it comes to their sexual roles, their political power and their place in American culture.
... totally politically harmful (it creates unnecessary divisions among feminists and smells of ageism), but it shows a tragic lack of knowledge. For one, only a person who's been hibernated for the last 2 or 3 decades could suggest that the Second Wave was "anti-sexuality". Some powerful streams within American feminist theories have argued that hetero intercourse and its representation are always oppressive to women's potentials and freedoms. The names that are usually tossed around in that context are MacKinnon and Dworkin (and T-Grace Atkinson, if I remember correctly...). I don't think Shulamith Firestone belongs here, although she wrote about the "barbarism of pregnancy." Many of their contemporaries concentrated primarily on sexuality as a field of freedom - I mean, has the author of this review/article ever heard of Ann Snitow, Ellen Willis, Gayle Rubin, On-Our-Backs, Pat Califia, Dorothy Allison, Carol Vance?... Not to mention the French feminists who spoke from "within the sexual difference", celebrated l'ecriture feminine, women like Helene Cixous, or Kristeva, or Irigaray's bodily re-writing of the Western philosophical canon... Most feminists within both academe and activism belonged to the multi-colour area between the two ends of the continuum, and did not define themselves as necessarily pro- or anti-sexuality. Most of them had much more complex world views and the least we could do is give them some credit for it. I hope that this article is not representative of what some believe is the 3rd Wave for another reason. That reason is: parochialism. Check this out: quote: The question to ask as you read along is: Can a Third Wave that tries to push forward urgent feminist issues -- such as national heath care and child care as well as the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment -- also champion girlie power with its penchant for adolescent role playing?
Yes, I believe women of Europe and Canada (not to mention the "rest" of the world) are really worried about these issues . Haven't we outgrown that, the will to proclaim our own parochial agenda a universal one? Plus, all that talk about techno-savvy, cyber-sexual chicks is very much culturally marked (probably in terms of class too). If this is the "Third Wave", then it picked up the worst features of the No. 1 and 2. But learning from past mistakes, learning about our traditions, mothes and sisters, and multiplicity of differences, implies a non MTV-clip-long commitment and respect. What they said about Gloria Steinem not being a real feminist leader (but media-produced one) shows some of that awareness, which is a great thing. What else for this quick survey... Yeah, some of the books on your book link... In my world, Naomi Wolf's book The Beauty Myth would qualify for the exact opposite of the Third Wave. It was, and still is (along with some much better stuff by Bartky and Susan Bordo) a bible of anti-ornamenting, anti-make up, anti-obsessed-with-one's-looks chicks. I was suprised to learn that women who lived in the Communist Russia who managed to read the book at the height of its popularity - absolutely hated it. It reminded them of the official Party line on the subject, which preached that any kind of cosmetic extravangance and dressing up means succumbing to the Western bourgeois women-objectifying ways. (Which is not to say that I don't like the book. I think it deserved the fame.) More later, I am starving now. And keep bringing those links and references in. [ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Trespasser ]
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 13 October 2001 11:35 PM
quote: I hope this does not refer to me:quote: You shouldn't have to have taken women's studies courses in university in order to be a "real" feminist.
Nope. It wasn't referring to you at all. I was actually responding to Audra's comment that she hasn't been to university at all, and it got me thinking about some of the divisions within feminism that are caused by people who divide feminists into an academic/practical split. It was about the misunderstandings caused from both sides of the fence, when those without formal feminist education feel their feminism is undervalued and those with formal education feel that their theoretical perspectives are seen as "unpractical". But I wasn't referring to you, Trespasser. I think theory and practice go hand-in-hand. I haven't had any formal theoretical education until this past year, but I felt myself getting more and more radical just from life experience and from the few feminist writings I did read before going to school. But then, when I went to school, everything that I was thinking myself was put into words, and into perspective, and into a larger political context. Every one of my experiences seemed to fall into place. It was an unbelievable feeling. But, I would not have had such a strong reaction to what I had read last year if I hadn't had the life experience to bring to it. There were 17 and 18 year old, white, middle-class, pretty, carefree girls in my class who, while they did understand the theory, just didn't have the life experience to really GET it. That's why I think theory and practice are both equally important, and that feminism shouldn't be divided into "practical" and "theoretical". I don't believe there is a such thing as "theoretical" feminism - it's all practical, whether you practice by refusing to put up with sexist crap from your husband or boss, or whether you write about not taking sexist crap from your husband or boss. Either way, you're raising your own consciousness of your inherent personal worth, and you're raising the consciousness of others as well.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
krishna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1242
|
posted 14 October 2001 02:28 AM
Fascinating discussion. I am left wondering where i fit in the big picture and how i can help or at least not spoil anyone's surfing.Does being a 3rd Wave Feminist imply internalization of 2nd Wave values and the named 3rd Wave behaviours? Does it go outside women-only issues to include recognition / respect for people of all self-identified genders having any sexual preference, or perhaps only persecuted minorities? Can i, as a man with feelings that often coincide with that of women, who is sexually attracted to women, find a hopeful vision and a welcome with 3rd Wave Feminists? Will i ever be truly trusted or considered trustworthy by women? Being that i will probably always have some culturally imprinted power issues and habits to work out, should i consign that hope to the next generation, when something closer to an ideal society will have been achieved (or we are all wiped out)? Lots o questions Pardon my ignorance, inanity or irreverence. I am truly puzzled and sometimes frustrated in trying to relate to others (who look to me like women) in activist groups. [ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: krishna ]
From: Ottawa and Rideau rivers area | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 14 October 2001 02:34 PM
I'm just a bystander, really. But in truth -- and not in any way to diminish the importance of these debates -- some of this strikes me as the kind of intergenerational tension you find in almost any half-way radical movement.For example, I have had a one-time Sixties anarchist (OTSA) sit there with a snifter of Grand Marnier and tell me that radicals nowadays were wasting their time with "political correctness" and the like. "We stopped a war, you guys just worry about speech codes," went the text of his sermon. This, look you, less than six months after the Gulf War, and coming moreover from a comfy member of a university faculty. (Doubtless the "political correctness" bunfight was a little too close to home for this OTSA). I refrained from pointing out (a) that the OTSAs no more stopped a war than we did, and (b) that in the 1960s they had one-time Thirties Marxists reading them the same lectures. To be candid, I refrained only because I didn't think of these replies for another couple of days, but let that pass. (To be still more candid, I too was drinking Grand Marnier during the above non-exchange). By no manner of means am I casting anathema on veterans of the 1960s/1970s scenes. (This means you, skdadl!) Thankfully, it was obvious that OTSA buddy was scarcely typical of his cohort (I reject the use of the word "generation" in this context). I'm only pointing out that these arguments, or similar ones, are not unique to feminism of any wave. As for feeling trusted or trustworthy, given my XY chromosomes, I spent some time in the 1980s and early 1990s in the company of latter-day Second Wavers -- peace movement, student press, student government, union. I almost never felt that anyone considered me, or men in general, untrustworthy. I can remember a few muttered comments from radical feminists or lesbian separatists, but you almost had to strain to hear them. It was like they felt they had to do it. Or, together with some of my colleagues (male and female), I was a bit bemused by some of the ecofeminists ("women are more in touch with the earth" -- nothing personal, earthmother! . Living on the Wet Coast, I should have picked up on your surfing analogy, which was great). I was more bemused by a few men who felt obliged to recreate the women's caucuses of the day, and gathered to discuss their feelings. I did feel that much of the initiative and credibility in these organizations rested with the feminists. But any currents of serious mistrust or blame I didn't pick up on, possibly through naivete, or perhaps simply because I didn't swim with those schools. Most comment about "typical men" was offered in a joking spirit. Oh, and Trespasser wrote: quote: there is not a single feminism-defined issue among major concerns of the public in Canada or the US.
I'd say abortion and contraception are major concerns of the public. And despite political rhetoric in the US particularly, and the battle against abortion, both open and surreptitious, being waged by the Christian fundamentalists there, the pro-choice position is the mainstream position. When a majority of American Catholics reject their own church's position on this, you know that something fundamental has changed. Choice is under serious threat, of course, and unavailable in many places. But in general Americans are ahead of their leaders on this. It's often framed in terms of privacy or individual choice, rather than in feminist ones, but it wouldn't have got to this point without feminism. [ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 14 October 2001 06:17 PM
Hey 'lance, thanks for wading in. quote: This, look you, less than six months after the Gulf War, and coming moreover from a comfy member of a university faculty. (Doubtless the "political correctness" bunfight was a little too close to home for this OTSA).
That's for sure. Many older male professors are all into women's issues - until the women in the faculty forget their place and resist having the university faculties run by men. Well, at least this is something I've heard about even the more left-wing social sciences and humanities departments at Queen's. They'll support feminism as long as those women don't interfere with the old boys' network in the university. quote: Or, together with some of my colleagues (male and female), I was a bit bemused by some of the ecofeminists ("women are more in touch with the earth"
I think that's a rather unfair characterization of ecofeminism. I don't see ecofeminism as a form of gender feminism where women say they are more deeply in touch with the earth and nature. I see it as a metaphor for oppression. There is a significant debate in ecofeminism about whether it's wise for ecofeminists to link women to nature since that has been used against women for so long due to the dualistic thinking of men-mind/women-body. Here's a neat quote from one of my texts that can explain ecofeminism better than I can: "Like multicultural and global feminism, ecofeminism strives to show the connections among all forms of human oppression, but it also focuses on human beings' attempts to dominate the nonhuman world, or nature. Because women have been culturally tied to nature, ecofeminists argue there are conceptual, symbolic, and linguistic connections between feminist and ecological issues. "Cultural ecofeminists disagree with social-constructionist ecofeminists about the wisdom of stressing women's association with nature...[however], all ecofeminists agree that women's and nature's liberation are a joint project." Ecofeminists see the similarity between the subjugation of nature and the subjugation of women which for the most part has benefitted rich, white men. Not that western women don't overconsume. But women for the most part aren't the heads of the corporations that are gaining financial and political power from encouraging western society to overconsume, even if they are members of the family or social circle of the men who are.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 15 October 2001 11:43 AM
This -- Michelle's last post -- leads to a question I was thinking about over the weekend. Can we think of a feminism that is not left, leftish, or at least somehow oppositional in character? Or maybe, what do we think of feminism that is not -- that is, is it really about liberating women?Second, and this really is a request for information, what has happened to what we used to call consciousness-raising? I find my own comments above about sexual differance kind of glib now, but I really would like to know whether those discussions still go on. So far, we've sort of referred in polite summary form to discussions that did go on -- but do they, and how have they changed? For instance, as Trespasser says, what about classic sexism and the ole patriarchy? Presumably, open expression of those attitudes has been driven underground since the 60s/70s. But how do feminists who've ceased to feel that every man they know or meet is going to be in need of severe and constant correction -- as I admit we certainly did for a time there (although I'm sure Jeff House would have been a shining exception ) -- talk, think about, cope with the differences that they know persist, that we all still live with -- or maybe not?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 15 October 2001 08:12 PM
Re 'Lance's previous post: OK, abortion is the only issue, and in France currently the issue of quota representation in legislative bodies, but that's about it. There's nothing else on the horizon.Wot Skdadl said. Isn't (wasn't) consciousness raising an interesting phenomenon? We have probably lost that innocence, that trust in an unmediated, crude "women's" experience that waits somewhere inside us for the right moment to speak the truth in all its grief and splendour... I've talked to Ann Snitow (whom I admire) about this, and she is the first to agree that "there are no private languages" and that our words are not auto-generated, but would still keep a steady dosage of CR group chat during her courses. But here's an excerpt from Snitow's A Gender Diary that I particularly love, that actually sums up what feminism "is all about": quote: In the early days of this wave of the women’s movement, I sat in a weekly consciousness raising group with my friend A. We compared notes recently: What did you think was happening? How did you think our own lives were going to change? A. said she had felt: “Now I can be a woman; it’s no longer so humiliating. I can stop fantasizing that secretly I am a man, as I used to, before I had children. Now I can value what was once my shame”. Her answer amazed me. Sitting in the same meetings during those years, my thoughts were roughly the reverse: “Now I don’t have to be a woman any more. I need never become a mother. Being a woman has always been humiliating, but I used to assume there was no exit. Now the very idea ‘woman’ is up for grabs. ‘Woman’ is my slave name; feminism will give me freedom to seek some other identity altogether.” [...] A common divide keeps forming in both feminist thought and action between the need to build the identity 'woman' and give it solid political meaning and the need to tear down the very category 'woman' and dismantle its all-to-solid history. [...] Feminists - and indeed most women - live in a complex relationship to this central feminist divide. From moment to moment we perform subtle psychological and social negotiations about just how gendered we choose to be.
Wisdom embodied. I have nothing to add. (Skdadl, what was your experience of the early CR?)
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 15 October 2001 09:57 PM
You've certainly taken side in this, haven't ya? Other women would say that it is the patriarchy that pressures women into bearing children. Childless women are regarded as worthless in comparison to women-mothers. Most patriarchal cultures and religions worship Motherhood to the point of fear and in one way or another assign to childless women the place of social lepers... Motherhood is (was) the only socially approved role that a woman could assume... Woman is a walking uterus, basically, something that enables the continuation of a family name, a nation, a race, human species... Motherhood is a patriarchal institution (not to mention heterosexist) that approves women's self-sacrifice and self-annihilation at the expense of their personal growth and well-being... And so on and on and on. Most of the time I am with this other school of thought, Earthmother, for I fail to see the revolutionary, anti-patriarchal potential of mothering. I know, I know, Ruddick, Daly etc. But I remain unconvinced. Which is not to say that I have a universal answer to this. I don't. This is my own idiosyncratic choice between the two options. For some women motherhood is really a salvation from patriarchy (though I haven't met that many of them). What right do I have to preach that they're deluded. And viceversa. [ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Trespasser ]
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 16 October 2001 12:24 AM
To those whom it may concern;I have been asked to turn in my feminist card. A card which I have proudly held since I was knee high to a grasshopper. However, it now seems that I have been branded a R.E.A.L. woman in feminist clothing, a claim which I hotly contest. Who am I though, proud mother and wife,relatively kind and intelligent and willing to support the hopes and dreams of others,who am I to brand myself a feminist? So I am deferring to those who know infinitely better than I who it is I am and returning my card forwith. Hereby I shall be known as she who dared to glory in being woman. Who gloried in having breasts and womb. Who gloried in nurturing and loving and guiding and imparting some sense of wisdom to those whose lives she touched. Yes I am hardly the kind of person to call myself a feminist. Thank you for your time I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. Earthmother
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 16 October 2001 03:00 AM
quote: I have been asked to turn in my feminist card. A card which I have proudly held since I was knee high to a grasshopper. However, it now seems that I have been branded a R.E.A.L. woman in feminist clothing, a claim which I hotly contest.
If I can wade in here again, earthmother, that's not what I understood Trespasser to be saying. And I'm as disinterested an observer as they come (where "disinterested" != "uninterested"). She disclaimed having any universal answers, talked about having made her own "idiosyncratic" choice, and denied being in a position to tell anyone she was deluded. Doubtless the disagreement is somewhat fundamental, but it doesn't strike me that she was intending to drum you out.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 16 October 2001 04:35 PM
grils, grils, grils ... Earthmother, I took that quotation Trespasser inserted above to be turning especially on this insight: quote:
Her answer amazed me. Sitting in the same meetings during those years, my thoughts were roughly the reverse.
And isn't that what we all have been noticing, and agreeing we must take into account, the need to hold more than one thought or commitment in mind all at once. Maybe if I just answer Trespasser's last question to me ... I do remember contradictory pushes and pulls from the first days of the women's groups I knew. For instance, analysing sexism and making ourselves tough enough to confront it both publicly and privately was urgent work at the time, and to some women probably seemed like the more "serious" political work that there was to be done. And yet: why would we be protesting the exploitation of women in the first place if we were not convinced that women were indeed already strong: their strength was just not recognized or valued? So some of the time we were all seized with self-consciousness over our soft voices and our fear of confronting either bosses or lovers, our fear of appearing aggressive, or of succeeding, or or or. Yet some of the time we were "celebrating" what we already were and what women had been. Maybe for some women, that meant strictly accomplishments that would also have mattered in the patriarchy except for their suppression: how many great scientists, writers, painters, etc, could we resurrect? But I think for most women, there remained a strong sense of how valuable our traditional "feminine" training had been: of how important nurturing really is; of how much more psychologically acute we were than were the guys we knew; of the value of craft skills and craft-consciousness, which many traditionally "feminine" occupations rely on and refine ... and on and on. Well, I can't do a full analysis of any of this here, but I think we all can see where the potential for many different feminisms always lay. I still live more than a few contradictions myself; while I charged ahead with a kind of artistic-intellectual vocation and remained childless, I am convinced that that vocation is as much rooted in some of the "feminine" training I received as a kid (although there were some irregularities there) as in academic training. And of course some of the psychological acuteness (not just mine -- women's generally) is at least partly rooted in oppression itself: we all know how much smarter about the master the dependent becomes ... because she has to. None of us should be apologizing for what she is, for heaven's sake, and for sure not for what she's accomplished! It's still so easy -- obviously -- to prick that defensiveness into life and action ... But our lives are not comments on any one other's -- or at least they could be contributions, instead, to an ongoing conversation. I was going to write a funny paragraph about the kinds of reactions I know I can still get from (some?) men who are mainly most enlightened and who've been grandly assuming that the women they know are measuring up to their standards but who can become confused or disdainful the moment I tell them about, eg, my cats, or tell them that I consider it to be a profoundly serious philosophical, historical, political, and economic issue whether we can call Yves St Laurent an artist. I mean, I do so consider it ... but I also get a giggle out of pulling legs, and that one is a guaranteed conversation stopper in a lot of elevated places. chuckle, chuckle But this is getting too long.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 10 November 2001 02:24 PM
Let's go all!Third Wave Feminism International Conference An Institute for Feminist Theory and Research Conference (http://www.iftr.org.uk) July 23-25, 2002 Crossmead Conference Centre University of Exeter, UK
Keynote Addresses: Germaine Greer, Elaine Showalter, Susan Stryker and E. Ann Kaplan Confirmed speakers: Jacqueline Labbe, Kate Fullbrook, Mary Orr, Sara Mills, Jacqueline Rose, John Dupre, Colin MacCabe, Susan Hayward, Clare Hanson and Pamela Church-Gibson. The conference will address the parameters of second wave feminism, posing the question of a third wave in feminist theory and history in order to redirect feminist enquiry without acceding to the defeatism implicit in postfeminism. Possible Topics: What is Feminism? Feminist Politics in the Academy Third Wave Femininity Who's Afraid of Essentialism? Sexualities Historicising the Third Wave Cyberfeminism (un)Popular Feminisms Racial and Gendered Bodies What Happened to the Sisterhood? Visual Culture The Maternal Consciousness-Raising Reproductive Technologies Transgender/Genderfucking Literary Feminisms Interrogating the Waves Class and Gender Reconstructing the Second Wave Between Materialism and Psychoanalysis The Feminist Critic Please note - this list is not comprehensive and is intended to suggest rather than prescribe.
Abstracts/ Panel proposals for academic papers, installations, readings, short films or performances by FEBRUARY 14, 2002 to: Dr. Stacy Gillis School of English University of Exeter Exeter, Devon EX4 4QH UNITED KINGDOM Tel: +44 (0)1392 264343 or 263712/ Fax: +44 (0)1392 264361 Email: [email protected] Conference Organisers: Stacy Gillis and Rebecca Munford, University of Exeter
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 10 November 2001 03:12 PM
I don't know that many names either. Here's a thing or two.Susan Stryker: here, and here, and here. Elizabeth Ann Kaplan, there. Jacqueline Labbe. Kate Fullbrock. Susan Hayward But other than Greer and Showalter, I've read only Jacqueline Rose, who's my favourite on this list. She wrote and edited(together with J. Mitchell) Feminine Sexuality : Jacques Lacan and the école freudienne, and Sexuality in the Field of Vision. I deserve this face .
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
niivala
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1229
|
posted 14 November 2001 11:13 AM
Recommended reading:If Women Counted, by Marilyn Waring. Great book about one-eyed economics that guarantees women's economic invisibility in spite of doing 2/3 of the world's work. And it's an easy read too. Witty. And if a book doesn't suit, try the video "Sex, lies and global economics". Economists actually believe these fictions: that anything supporting women's "non mothering roles" will cause the downfall of the family; that women's employment causes unemployment. Thereby the justification for the subordination of women all over the world from Canada to Africa. The economic system that we have depends on the unpaid labour of women for its very existence.
From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|