EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The End of the Women's Movement
The era of the singular feminist agenda is over. But that doesn't mean gender-based activism is.
The Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art, housed at the continually surprising and alive Brooklyn Museum, celebrated its second anniversary last weekend with a speak-out called "Unfinished Business." As the title suggests, the aim was to bring a diverse range of feminists together in one auditorium to talk about the future of our so-called movement. The lineup of official speakers was, indeed, admirably diverse -- both ethnically and generationally; it included activist and researcher C. Nicole Mason, labor organizer Ai-jen Poo, GritTV host Laura Flanders, novelist and rabble-rouser Esther Broner, and hip-hop artist Toni Blackman.
Most of the voices from the audience, however, sounded eerily similar. They spoke longingly about the exuberant past, characterized by abundant energy and "sisterhood." They lamented that no locatable movement exists anymore, that no one is organized, that no one is out in the streets. At one point, Broner even admitted, "I interpret everything through that time."
With the utmost respect for Broner, whom I found refreshing and radical, I think that this approach is at the center of contemporary feminism's biggest challenge. We are intergenerationally fractured, right down to the most foundational of questions: Is there a formal feminist movement anymore? Does there need to be?
Members of the second-wave generation developed their feminist identity during the heyday of direct action. They had ecstatic, very physical experiences of feminism. They went to meetings -- so, so many meetings. They pounded the pavement. They participated in direct-action spectacles like taking over the offices of The Ladies Home Journal. They yelled until their vocal chords were raw.
Now these women are older, many of them happily shifting into what Jane Fonda calls "the third act" -- a stage of life when they don't give a shit what anyone else thinks, and they want to see the world live up to its God damn potential, once and for all. They start dying their hair funky shades of red. They urge their husband to get a hobby as they head out for another expletive- and laughter-filled lunch with their friends -- other women who are funding feminist causes, editing feminist publications, and leading local feminist efforts. In some ways, it's a return to their earnest youth -- a time less fraught with the compromises that come with juggling families and careers. They're prioritizing changing the world again. And as such, they seem to experience an old hankering for an unapologetic women's movement that they can see, hear, and touch.
I don't blame them. All of their stories -- about marching in the streets, about taking over offices, about riding around the country in vans, falling in love – not only sounds like they had a whole lot of fun, but also managed to make some profound political changes. But I also recognize that it is a time that has passed. Not only is the women's movement -- as it was known in the 1960s -- over, but women my age don't even agree on what a "woman" really is.
Sometimes I feel as if my generation -- women in our 20s and 30s -- are feminism's Frankensteins. After all, Broner herself was responsible for building some of the first women's studies programs in the nation. Now a generation is graduating from them using words like "genderqueer" -- meaning that one doesn't identify exclusively as male or female. We generally aren't down for the subtle messaging by many older women who believe that females in positions of power are inherently less violent or more community-minded than their male counterparts, a view that Bitch magazine founder Lisa Jervis hilariously called "femmenism."
Many second-wave leaders have founded nonprofit organizations (Steinem alone is partly or fully responsible for Choice USA, the Women's Media Center, and The Ms. Foundation) that allow young women to become professional feminists -- those who make a living off of feminist activism by writing, teaching, and organizing. Thanks to their support -- financial and otherwise -- I wake up each morning and sit down at my laptop to "fight the patriarchy" (although I avoid the term like the plague). I mentor other young women who are interested in forging feminist careers. I teach women how to write op-eds. I go on conservative television shows and argue for the feminist point of view.
We march in the streets when we're called to (the March for Women's Lives in 2004, Take Back the Night each year on most college campuses) but more as a matter of solidarity and fun than out of any real conviction that protesting still creates change. Many of us, myself included, believe that change is created through strategic communication, alliance-building, and a million little grass-roots movements all over the country that fight for justice and may or may not call themselves feminist (I don't actually care much).
During the Sackler Center event, Broner shouted, "We need another Bella!" But young women are used to a more fractured, niche-driven world where there are no Bella Abzugs or Gloria Steinems -- just thousands of notable blogs with vivid analysis, hundreds of smart, energetic community organizers, a few notable young female politicians. People within feminist circles may recognize names like Jessica Valenti or Jennifer Baumgardner, but the general public doesn't. This is largely due to what Wired editor Chris Anderson calls "the long tail" -- the decreasing presence of a mainstream culture and the increasing influence of more diffuse communities organized around specific interests. In other words, we don't have a leader because it's hard to even pin down who "we" are. Leaders are useful for galvanizing movements, but they also rise to fame at a critical cost. Young feminists should count ourselves lucky that we don't have one face representing our generation -- which would mean one race, one socioeconomic class, one ideological bent. Nothing could be less representative, actually.
At one point during the event a fairly young woman stood up and expressed her dream of a "love craft" that would travel from coast to coast, creating a feminist utopia in international waters filled with art and healing. I admire her idealism. God knows I could use some sun after this long, cold winter. But I believe that ship has sailed.
In today's climate of shaky economics, smaller and smaller subcultures, and lightning-speed information, a feminism based on picket lines and in-person consciousness-raising groups is next to impossible. I wish that we could all come to terms with that. Instead of pining over days far gone or talking about how we might resurrect them, we could put our energy into supporting the good work on the ground going on right now -- the Young Women's Empowerment Project in Chicago, the Student Action with Farmworkers in Durham, Exhale after-abortion counseling in Oakland, Domestic Workers United in New York, and more. We could revise our expectations -- not a few giant fireworks but so many little sparks; not worldwide protests but effective public-awareness campaigns and advocacy and service provision; not a unified body but a courageous and creative culture.
Call me cynical, but I don't think there will ever be a global, or even national, uprising of women focused on one singular goal. There will be no singular feminist agenda. There will be no women's movement. And that's not a bad thing. Because there will be thousands upon thousands of women -- young and old alike -- waking up tomorrow with big ideas, lots of resources and communication tools, and plenty of conviction that they have the right and responsibility to make the world better. It's a little less romantic, I admit, but amazing nonetheless.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
25 Comments so far
Show AllMartin wrote:
"We march in the streets when we're called to...but more as a matter of solidarity and fun than out of any real conviction that protesting still creates change. Many of us, myself included, believe that change is created through strategic communication, alliance-building, and a million little grass-roots movements all over the country that fight for justice and may or may not call themselves feminist..."
The context in which feminist activism occurs has changed since the 70s, first by cable television and reality programming, then and most importantly by the ubiquitous presence of the internet. The internet has the potential to magnify every gesture into a well-known action, and so people (youth especially) are giving all their efforts into making gestures and hoping to get PR for them. I have been amazed by the short time-span people now give to their political gestures, as though "if I'm not a celebrity who brings attention to my cause within 6 months of launching my (website, blog, video, 'movement', etc.), I'm out and onto something else." Real effective action takes a 10 or 20 year commitment, so that an organization becomes an institution.
However - this context will change, beginning in a year or two and escalating thereafter. For sure the electricity grid is going to experience interruptions as the permanent energy crisis develops post-peak oil. Declining oil supplies (electronics are energy-intensive to manufacture) will mean that old computers will not be easily replaced, and everyone will not be able to afford internet-capable mobile devices. Internet gatekeeping will eventually win out. Feminist niche advocacy is going to be isolating if there's not a constant stream of new internet users.
In short, I think serious activists will find that the internet will be less useful than at present, and protesting will come back because mass movements are the only way to get the attention of policy makers.
Mass movements where the participants are willing to go to jail or even be killed are the ones that really work. (I think we will see them soon, for more elemental reasons like shelter and jobs at first.) But who wouldn't prefer to type all day and think that your blog or your newsletter or your strategic communication is changing the world? I hope that today's internet-focused activists will be willing to put down their keyboards and get into the streets. Otherwise the Communist parties, which believe in protests and seem to be hijacking every street protest I see photographed, will end up subverting the mass movements as they form.
The 2008 US Presidential Election is mute testimony to how short attention spans have become.
Candidate A says he is for "change" (that is never defined). Five other candidates say they are for change (that is never defined). Other candidates whose platforms detail change and who have a demonstrated history of change are marginalized and ignored. Candidate A wins and hires a bunch of insiders, thereby assuring NO CHANGE, and still maintains a very favorable approval rating.
You're missing pretty much the entire point of Martin's article.
Martin's point isn't so much the internet / blogs vs mass movements and marching.
Martin's point is more about the intergenerational conflict / disagreements between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism. Between the mothers and their daughters.
As Martin wrote, 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists cannot agree on what is feminism, and in many cases, even what it means to be female.
This conflict will exist, internet or no. It is not about the internet.
Once the energetic predicament of the Western world becomes dire and then catastrophic, feminism will become a dinosaur political movement, with its head in the polluted clouds.
True. But I hope that in whatever social reorganization takes place, women fight successfully to retain the basic rights that loosen patriarchy's grip: birth control, abortion/the morning after pill, equality in the work place, strong presence in the governing institutions.
Don't know much about feminism do you?
I hope this goes to the next level of equality for both men and women. As much as I love the women's movement and know that without it, I wouldn't be able to put higher education and career over dating and marriage, I sometimes wonder if we're sacrificing some of the men's rights without realizing it. I'm generally a strong proponent of equal rights and opportunities for both genders though I admit that I feel sad and even depressed when I hear of women and children suffering the most in any culture. Besides, there are a growing number of singles, both male and female, who are often mistreated in society. Worse, singles who never married are scorned upon the most. At some point, then men and women need to have a chance to sympathize with each other and put their strong warmongering ways aside. I don't know but too much of a woman's movement could prove to be overkill.
"I don't know but too much of a woman's movement could prove to be overkill."
There can't be "too much" of a women's movement. I have a very young daughter, and I want her to have the same freedoms (or more) that I've enjoyed. It's a simple history lesson--never forget what has transpired in the name of feminism, and never take it for granted.
It's a common mistake to believe that women having full equality with men somehow diminishes the "maleness" of men or compromises THEIR equality. Full equality is freedom for women AND men. Overcoming stereotypes about female intelligence, strength, beauty, sex, and childbearing, etc., all help women to live fuller and richer lives-and this in turn opens the door to real happiness between men and women.
I don't know about everyone else, but I do not want to return to a 1950's or 1960's definition of womanhood. Younger women need to be vigilant about their hard won rights, and the many battles their older sisters fought. And please remember the damage eight years of Bush has inflicted upon women's rights, particularly reproductive freedom. Women's rights are far from being "finished," and we ARE living in a patriarchal culture, like it or not. For example, domestic violence has been steadily increasing with more women and girls becoming victims of abuse, including death. Women AND men must not view each other as the enemy in the struggle for equal rights.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe in equality. It's just that one sex that's dominant over the other generally doesn't work out well. I do agree that the mid 20th century wasn't the best time for women and if that were still the case today, I doubt I would have even had the chance to consider putting education and career over dating and marriage first. Sometimes I also believe that we must also try and educate the males on going easy on women and going easy on their differences especially on the issue of reproductive rights. I've noticed in my life time that men who are well trained to respect women often end up being more like real men than the men who are brainwashed into trying to be the dominant sex. My favorite uncle sure told me what a real man is and that if he isn't kind to women, he's not a man at all.
Jennifer,
your disagreements, ie "It's just that one sex that's dominant over the other generally doesn't work out well" appears to be that you don't agree with hard core extremist 2nd wave feminism. There is more to feminism. Stereotypical hardcore 2nd wave feminists, who in the real world are pretty damn rare, are way too often, used as strawmen, or strawwomen, by people who want to return women to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Be proud to be a feminist. And I'm saying this as a male, and a feminist.
Well you betta believe in equality if you are female... And things are getting worse, not better. Read some history!
It's easy for me to rant about tax-payer bailouts for Wall Street con artists, the loss of good-paying American jobs, the health care/insurance issue, etc. However, I must admit that I don't know a whole lot about The End of the Women's Movement. So I don't have anything to add.
But I do want to thank you for the statement:
"...there are a growing number of singles, both male and female, who are often mistreated in society. Worse, singles who never married are scorned upon the most..."
I know this from personal experience.
We're on the cusp of realizing that that there is a choice to either live life in fear with war or to live life based in love. The real revolution will be to rescue the concept of love from the media banalization. Can women take that on? If it is taken on it will be truely revolutionary.
I hope it's not being too picky to say that no feminism or women's movement has ever had a single focus. Aside from that, it's pretty clear that, apart from anti-war movements, no one in North America has been able to mobilize mass movements in the streets. I agree that fragmentation has made that task more difficult. Interesting that large street protests are becoming more and more common in Europe - have a look at the protests in London re: the G20 Summit.
Huge numbers of people protest in the streets when huge numbers of people feel threatened and feel that the only way their voices will be heard is if they're raised collectively. We can't just wish those movements into being. In the times when those movements are relatively latent, old and new activists continue working, just a bit more quietly. I think something new is going to happen, apart from the small, quiet, local activities. But sometimes, the impetus comes from outside. Many things must come together to create a mass movement and they don't just rely on the activist styles of adherents. We'll see if younger feminists won't soon feel that same sense of immediacy that sent so many women and men into the streets for widely diverse reasons - it was the crises of the times that enabled coalition. I think we might be in for more spontaneous coalition.
Nostalgia ain't a good enough reason.
Umm...the anti-globalization movement mobilized a mass movement in the streets of Seattle.
"... no feminism or women's movement has ever had a single focus."
I'd say the Suffragettes were pretty focused on getting women the right to vote.
Sioux Rose
The wisdom of the Divine feminine has been so marginalized by the patriarchal institutions, starting with religious authorities, that much of what passes for feminism is women doing what men do. Years ago I did my best to introduce Ms. Magazine, then edited by Marcia Gillespie, to the premise of how the female psyche resonates with the lunar cycle. This subject was considered anathema in academia even though most women menstruate in accord with the moon's cycle. Few understand that the count of time taken off the moon and alloted to the sun, helped to shore up belief in a masculine father god, and then by extension, the son/sun of god, Jesus. The congruence between the lunar cycle and female biology gives rise to many predictable changes of mood which ought not be medicated away with Prosac or another "anti-depressant" drug. Far more empowering would it be for women to understand the range of emotions they are intended to move through, and why and how these recur with regularity.
Whereas Ms. Magazine in promoting the rights and abilities of women did multi-page spreads on women in sports, there was very little in the way of that spirituality--which often rests upon intuition and a capacity to read the sign languages expressing everywhere around us (a province generally lent to the shaman in most Indigenous cultures) that is more unique to women.
The feminist movement is hardly dead, like an orchard, instead of being planted in one definable zone, its seeds have been scattered by the wind and find form and dimension in every woman who uniquely defines herself while adding a positive contribution to this world.
Until more women step out of the presumption they must measure up to Adams's rib and/or the metrics of engineered body parts preferred by the men who read all those "naked" magazines, we will see women thinking they can "be all that they can be" by joining the military, or like so many men, devising careers out of playing with balls.
Before some of the intelligent men in this forum rush in to remind me that some women have been shown historically to be quite capable of brutal acts, it is fitting to understand that ALL of humanity has been held to ideological constraints that favor expressions suitable to an exaggerated sense of maleness. Mars, god of war, is certainly ONE of a plethora of potential masculine personae, and his preference is violence. Given the amount of energy, planning and resources that have been redundantly dedicated to war on this planet, it is OBVIOUS that this archetype has been alloted favorable nations' status. Until its Divine counterpart, Venus, that which champions love, beauty, music, art, sensuality, romantic conjugal love, as well as peace, diplomacy, negotiation and turning the other cheek is given EQUAL expression, many women mistake power for being like men.
And there are some notable men, Father John Dear, Dennis Kucinich, the many artists & poets who indeed resonate with and embrace Venus. These fellows have paid a price for not falling to their knees before the god of death and destruction... enlightenment of course is not specific to either gender, but these powerful archetypes of time are to our personalities (and behavior) what DNA is to our genes. Just as science demands that genes line up to produce clones, that fields be planted with monoculture... a very narrow range of expressions has been tolerated in both males and females. The arrival of the Aquarian Age (now beginning) is seen in all the bisexuality, and gender bending behaviors that are a huge rebellion to the old roles and rules. This, too, is part of the process that mankind faces--should it survive its massive present follies and warped leadership--a reaching for higher, more unifying, life-affirming expressions. These have always existed, but were made taboo and off-limits by the controlers of culture. Embodied as the church-state-rich elites they have almost never wanted to see real progress demonstrated among "the masses."
The age of kings is over... but the struggle for "the people" to regain their Divine Right to the pursuit of happiness is now entering a whole new chapter. It is a revolution in consciousness... with MANY impacts yet to be seen.
Ray Berthiaume
Thank you so much, SiouxRose. I find these words enlightening, encouraging and comforting. I believe salvation for our world will come from/through women.
Sioux Rose
RAY: And the men strong and wise enough to love and nurture them, because the joint creation, fruit of that mutual admiration will be something unique to (and for) this planet. Let us first get through the final phase of this transition without allowing the madmen to simulate their own big bangs in pursuit of the affection of Mars.(And thank you for your acknowledgement.)
Ray - My initial response is to agree with you and then I thought "Wait. Another man who wants US to do all the work!"
Only slightly tongue in cheek,
~Juliann
Now we we need a men's movement from the left.
Boys are falling far behind in educational achievement. The near future will see a predominately male under-class.
The family courts must be reformed to promote active fathering and not just father's as distant sources of cash support.
Men, particularly working class men, are the vast majority of war casualties and prison population. It's not so easy being a man in our society, particularly if you are from the poorer classes.
As a man who participated in some of the feminist golden age actions, I think it's time for men to organize in an attempt to regain the humanity that has been stolen from us by patriarchal culture.
I'm afraid this will cause a clash with many old school "us v. them" feminists, but the new wave just might be able to wrap their minds around the idea
dreamjoehill - the majority of the "old school" feminists (I'm one) continue to value a partnership model that doesn't include a dominant person (or side) or submissive person (or side). We have to work together or not much is going to come of it all. (I could have been more eloquent in responding but I'm tired....)
~Juliann
It is fascinating to me that someone can write an entire essay about feminism without ever offering her definition of the term. I'd like to know what she means by feminism. For me, feminism involves the recognition that as a class, women are disadvantaged vis a vis men, or put more strongly, oppressed by male dominance enforced by violence and intimidation, and the commitment to work toward changing that dynamic in solidarity with other women and supportive men.
Well then, here ya go. Straight from Wikipedia:
Feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women and that campaign for women's rights and interests. According to some, the history of feminism can be divided into three waves. The first wave was in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the second was in the 1960s and 1970s, and the third extends from the 1990s to the present. Feminist theory emerged from these feminist movements. It is manifest in a variety of disciplines such as feminist geography, feminist history and feminist literary criticism.
I would bet that if the author were asked, she could not give a coherent definition of the feminist ideals. And I must object to her position that 'feminism' is a dead letter.
The principles of feminism could have saved us all. Could have... Instead, we have stuck our fingers in our ears and sung war songs at the tops of our lungs. Made a gazillion dollars and then lost it.
Now our lungs are filling by the toxic 'blow-back' generated by corrupt rulers and complacent sub-classes working in tandem.
Uhuh – times up!
Like all of species, there is a beginning, middle and end. So now, with the soot filled skies ablaze and the seas full of microbial sized polymers, put your head between your knees and kiss your bottom (and species) avoir.
I appreciate the feminist movement and feminists. They're real, not made up like barbie dolls and dressed like they're on the cover of a fashion magazine.