One of the biggest messages I took from the three readings for Tuesday, “The Future That Never Happened” “The Feminist Mystique” and “The Re-Emergence of the Woman Question” was that as women’s roles changed, so did the roles of men. In class we have talked about how interconnected and all encompassing the women’s movement is. The women’s movement is not just a movement that involves women, but has repercussions for people of all gender, class, and race. Women were used to filling subordinate, submissive positions in their place of work or at home, but with the rise of feminism, women wanted these roles to change. It makes sense that the roles of men, who had usually been in the leading, dominant role, were about to change as well. This changing of roles did not come easily, and often caused a lot of conflict.
This conflict is clearly seen in the article “The Woman Question”. In this situation, white women, white men, black men, and black women are all working together for the same cause. Yet their shared goal does not mean that they are able to work together easily. A certain stratification develops, and those at the bottom feel used and ignored. Here is a quote from a black woman at a SNCC meeting: “The Negro girls feel neglected because the white girls get attention. The white girls are misused. There are some hot discussions at staff meetings” (29). Although these progressive groups were working towards a new future, the fact that they couldn’t put their differences aside shows how deeply engrained our social norms and roles are.
In “The Future That Never Happened” Levy brings up the notorious figure of Hugh Hefner to show how as feminine roles were reevaluated, masculine roles were reevaluated as well. Hefner invents a new kind of man that does not go hunting, but instead wears sweaters, listens to jazz, and knows how to make a mean cocktail. Thus, both roles were freed from earlier traditional roles of domesticity: “The feminists’ conception of the liberated woman shared a common attribute. She no longer had to toil in the kitchen, benevolent for her brood; she was reconceived as her own, independent person. She was freed from domesticity” (57).
Now, in many families, both partners want to have successful careers outside of the home. Yet it can be very difficult for these families to juggle two careers and maintain a home. A female family friend, who is a successful partner in a law firm, recently joked to my parents, “I need a wife”. Although she is joking, I think this sentiment is telling of women’s confliction about having a successful career or staying home and being a wife. When a woman does go to work, she may feel guilt about the household chores sliding, thus the need for a wife.
I found a very interesting, yet funny, article on New York Times addressing this same issue. The author, Sandra Tsing Loh, talks about her secret desire for a 1950’s wife, but now with both partners having jobs, the concept of a “wife” is vanishing: “In the end, we all want a wife. But the home has become increasingly invaded by the ethos of work, work, work, with twin sets of external clocks imposed on a household’s natural rhythms. And in the transformation of men and women into domestic co-laborers, the Art of the Wife is fast disappearing.” (NYT 1). I think that modern women are still figuring out how to juggle home and career, and the secret desire for someone to fill the role that they once had is a facet of changing roles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24tsingloh.html?em
After reading the articles and chapter for Tuesday's class (1/26), I thought it was interesting to compare the feminist movement to the civil rights movement. One thing in particular that I found interesting was a quote from Levy that said "Women as a class have never subjugated another group; we have never marched off to wars of conquest in the name of the fatherland...those are games men play." This definitely didn't seem accurate to me. I think we as white women find ways to "oppress" other women just as we were "oppressed" by men. I read "feminism" in the Levy chapter and the Friedan article to mean that women were freed from domesticity. With this in mind, I examined my experience growing up. I went to school with many children whose parents were highly educated and therefore both parents chose to work and earn money, which in my mind seems to coincide with this definition feminism, in that both mother and father were freed from domesticity. However, the housework had to somehow be taken care of. So rather than having the white mother take care of it since she was at work all day like the father, they hired women of color to do housework/cleaning. These women of color who were doing this housework for these wealthy families were most likely immigrants who were minimally educated. So these white wealthy educated women to me do seem to "oppress" other women just as they were "oppressed" by men because they are not "freeing" these women of color from domesticity.
ReplyDeleteAnother observation I made was that CAKE, which I had previously never heard of, seemed to sound like our mother's generation's version of Girls Gone Wild. This was just funny to me because our parents today act blown away and outraged by Girls Gone Wild, but to me it doesn't seem that much different from CAKE, except for the fact that people watch it on tv. I don't want to sound cynical, because in some areas I feel like feminism has come a long way, but in this regard, it seems to have not made much progress and I am curious to know why.
Lastly, in response to Levy's point on the reason for feminism falling further out of favor......I'm not sure if it was Levy or Ceballos, but one of them seemed confused as to why the phenomenon of American womanhood is the opposite style/attitude/set of principles of the braless, unshaven, disheveled women. I can appreciate their negative feelings about the "stereotypical" woman who should have huge boobs, waxed private parts, and other aspects that would indicate some servitude to men's desires. And I can understand that it would cause radical feelings to be the opposite (braless, hairy etc) but my feeling is that sexual expression and appearances are personal. The majority of women don't want to go through life hairy and disheveled, nor do they really want to have their private parts waxed on a monthly basis, but why are women surprised that today's girls and women are not as in support of the unshaven unkempt women's movement? We may be developing those same radical feelings and in the opposite direction that they had intended....kind of like a pendulum of expression. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see what our children's generation does in terms of sexual expression.
Contrasting Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique with Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs reflects the changes that feminism has undergone and how complex both feminism and life are for the modern woman. Friedan had a clear demographic of women who all shared the same problem: they felt trapped by the monotony of a strict role of homemaker and guilty and alone because their life was glamorized by the media as ideal. While the introduction presents one criticism, that it only applied to upper/middle class suburban housewives, the general trends were nearly universal – women marrying younger and having all of their lives consumed by the home, leading to a lack of identity and feelings of emptiness. The issue was identifiable and once it became part of the public discourse, became an issue that could be resolved. Friedan ends the piece by summarizing the general opinion of women as “I want something more than my husband and my children and my home” (Friedan 1963). The woman of 2010 compared to the woman of 1963 has achieved this goal, and yet women still face a number of inequalities. While women have broken out of the house and into the workforce, the issues have only gotten more complex and difficult to pinpoint.
ReplyDeleteEmma brings up one of the issues of the modern woman as juggling home and career, which aptly reflects the challenge that women face today. Now, instead of being “just” a homemaker, they can have a job as well. When the potential to have a career in addition to a family became an option, at the same time as being incredibly liberating and opening previously closed doors, it also added a significant burden. Our media portrays the image of the ideal woman as someone who has it all – a career, a husband, and children. Now, feminism is suffering because there is no single cause to unite women. Women in the workforce is a number that can be measured and documented over time. Raunch culture is not quantifiable the same way. While there are still statistics and hard facts like annual rapes and college campuses, the issues that Levy raises are not as clear cut as what Friedan writes about. There is no common enemy, for women are at fault right alongside men. Motives are confusing – Hugh Hefner claims himself to be a “feminist before there was such as thing as feminism” (Levy, 2005, p. 56) and donates to feminist causes, even supporting Roe v. Wade. In the organization SDS, even those campaigning for civil rights were acting in sexist ways. The anti-pornography women’s group aligned itself with the right wing movement. Women acting in highly sexualized ways in public claim to be empowered and liberated. The cumulative result of these complexities is that the modern feminist is left with no one to blame and no clear answers or solutions. Women are pitted against each other and perpetuate cycles like raunch culture. According to Time magazine, while women have “gained more freedom, more education and more economic power”, at the same time “they have become less happy” (Time Magazine online).
I think part of the problem is that social movements tend to generalize a group of people as having a shared goal. For some women, being a homemaker is the most satisfying, rewarding, and dynamic occupation. For other women, being single and being a powerful business woman is what gives their lives meaning. Some find a balance between the two. Most women don’t fall into either of these categories, but somewhere in between. Feminism is about women doing what they want to do, not what society dictates. Women should be able to find their own personal hybrid of what works for them, not be pressured to choose or prioritize certain things. The issue of work vs. home is paralleled by raunch culture because they both have certain expectations of behavior for society to accept a woman. Certainly, some women do love being put on display, but standardizing sexuality to be public hurts women as a whole. Levy writes “we skipped over the part where we just accept and respect that some women like to seem exhibitionistic and lickerish, and decided instead that everyone who is sexually liberated ought to be imitating strippers and porn stars” (Levy, 2005, 27). Ideally, women (and men, of course) would be free to choose whatever path gives them personal happiness and satisfaction, no matter where they are on the range of career/home and sexuality as public/private.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-2,00.html#ixzz0dg3ByHkR
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great set of posts; you've raised some really interesting points and questions, and also do a nice job of dialoguing with one another while still getting your own ideas down. Emma, I'm struck by your point about the interconnection of male and female roles, and the ways in which increased opportunities for one group can mean decreased opportunities for another. This is absolutely true, and (I think) part of the anxiety that surrounds the notion of feminism and women's activism generally. Emily, I also appreciate your criticism of Levy. You're absolutely right: Levy is sidestepping a huge dynamic in second wave feminism, and for that matter, one that has plagued women's activism since suffrage.
Finally, thanks for including the links to the "wife" articles. This is something that we'll definitely come back to later in the semester!
Nice work!