Moving Forward

(In response to readings for Tuesday, February 1)

The reading “Girl, You’ll be a Woman Soon” in Manifesta brought up some ideas about feminism that I hadn’t thought about before. The author cited Gloria Steinem’s idea in Revolution from Within about “the huge hole that grows in a woman who is trying to be equal but has internalized society’s low estimation of women” (135). Rereading this statement, I think what the author is talking about the disconnect between striving to be equal and society’s ingrained state of inequality, but when I read this for the first time, I thought about something different. It made me think about, if we keep on focusing on inequality, will we ever be equal? If we keep on dwelling about all the ways that women were treated unfairly, will we ever be treated fairly? It seems as though one of the downfalls of pushing hard to show that women are equal is that it suggests that we were unequal in the first place. I am not sure if I am being clear in this point, but to draw somewhat of a parallel is the example of affirmation action. Affirmative action’s goal is to bring diversity and equality to the workplace, but a downfall of this plan is that many people think by giving minorities an advantage, it suggests that they need this boost because they are less capable and unequal to their white counterparts. Therefore, it reinforces the idea it was trying to disprove. I think something similar can be said of some of the feminist discourse. As I mentioned in my last post, I always think finding the positive in every situation will get you a lot farther than dwelling on the negative. One aspect of the feminist readings that we have read so far in Women’s Studies that makes me uncomfortable is the focus on past inequalities. Maybe it is because I am living in Third Wave feminism, but I am of the mindset to focus on the positive things that are happening in the feminism right now and put the past behind where it belongs. Maybe the solution is not this simple, but sometimes dwelling on past events holds us back from moving forward.

Waves of Feminism

Elizabeth Cady Stanton outlines the ways in which men have oppressed and deprived women of their rights in her Declaration of Sentiments from the 1948 Seneca Falls convention. These include being held inferior in legal, religious, economic, political, social and personal aspects of life. Using the form of the Declaration of Independence, she states that women and men are equal and outlines all of the offenses which men have committed. The language is strong and clear, placing blame squarely on men and making it clear that it is no accidentally created situation, but that they had “in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her” (Stanton, 1889). The difference between first wave and 3^rd wave feminism is clear: 3^rd wave lacks the unified voice and list of specific complaints. I wonder how satisfied Stanton would be if she saw the state of women in US society and globally. Many of the issues she raises have been resolved- many of the legal boundaries, blocks to education, and oppression of rights have been removed. I think what still remains true is the idea that men have created a “false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in men” (Stanton, 1889). Levy might argue that today the double standard of morality is perpetuated by women equally to men.  

I relate Sojourner Truth’s speech to the current state of feminism because she describes the disparity between how she, as an African-American woman, was treated completely differently than a white woman. The 3^rd wave of feminism has goals such as abolish double standards and strive for equal pay for equal work, generally focusing on empowerment and identity. While these are incredible valid and important to American women, they are of little concern to women in other countries who face female genital mutilation, systematic rape as a tactic of warfare, vastly unequal literacy rates between men, or even not being legally allowed to drive a car. Even inside the United States, there issues such as ignored rape of female prison inmates. Can 3^rd wave feminism fight issues as disparate as sex stereotypes in the United States and sex slaves in Thailand?

DuBois compares the 1^st and 2^nd waves of feminism and the similarity that they both stemmed from social causes, abolition and the civil rights movement respectively. During these movements, women were confined to “shitwork” of the women’s sphere while men made the decisions. They were already organized in a group framework of social change, and feminism naturally sprung out of their frustration. What does this mean for the 3^rd wave, which is not coupled with a social movement? If Levy is right that the 3^rd wave defines itself against the “anti-sex” aspect of the 2^nd wave, what does this mean for the future of feminism? Will another wave of feminism emerge from the current environmental cause, which could potentially illuminate gender disparities and environmental injustices?

The Consequences of Changing Gender Roles

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

Raunch Culture

The biggest point that I took away from the reading for Tuesday’s class was that the problem with inequality in our side comes from both males and females. The problem of gender roles is entirely ingrained in society to a point where women and men often don’t realize that the ways that they act are inherently because of their gender and the way that they have been socialized because of their gender.

I thought that the idea that there are two sides to a problem was true when looking at the “Raunch Culture” described in Female Chauvinist Pigs. The Girl’s Gone Wild videos wouldn’t exist if girls weren’t willing offering themselves to be part of it, but it also wouldn’t exist without a demand for the finished product. The part that I’m unsure of is the role that the GGW Company plays in this situation. Are they just as bad as the women because they make it a mainstream commercial product? This is also true for the pornography industry and magazines such as Maxim or Playboy.

The idea of confidence was also really interesting to look at. A lot of women claim that posing for playboy or other magazines displayed confidence and meant that a woman was okay with her own body, but this seems to be the only way that a woman can express this. If they aren’t okay with the industry, then they must not be confident with their body. Where these women derive confidence from is also an issue. They derive confidence from men thinking that they are “hot”, but it’s only one definition of hot. I remember this past weekend reading the People magazine with Heidi Montag on the cover. The inside story is about the plastic surgery that she went through and features a before and after picture. While sitting with a group of guys, every single one of them said that her “before” picture was more attractive. The real question is, whom are we trying to please with our looks? Are we constantly trying to dress and make ourselves look a certain way for others, specifically men? And if so, are we really achieving that? Or are we, like Heidi, altering ourselves and putting ourselves through pain for no reason at all?