I think it's part of the natural evolution of forces that feminism has unleashed over the last 30 years.

There is no one way to be a woman, just as there is no one way to be a man. The difference is that individual choices that women make are more scrutinized, and that alters how women are perceived.

The degrees of freedom available to women are a work in progress, but then again, that's also true in some ways for men, e.g., men who use family leave laws to care for significant others, or husbands who choose to stay at home with the kids, are often perceived as weak or ineffectual.

Paradigm shift often provoke ambiguous feelings in people which can result in negative characterizations.

I think it may well be that feminists are often their own worst enemies for the same reason Dems and progressives experience the same problem. You get a bunch of intellectual types commenting and critiquing things to the point where you're counting angels on the head of a pin and looking removed from reality as you do so. I mean "you" here to be all of us who participate in those sorts of commentaries,debates,etc... It's a hazard that come with the territory.

My personal opinion is that whether feminist, progressive, or Democrat, all of us need to think more about achieving our objectives and how to do so as opposed to winning every nitpicking little intellectual argument that comes down the pike. I've witnessed too many silly struggles between those who want to be right vs those who want to achieve some goal or get something done not to recognize this pattern in our public process of discourse.

The problem is for the same reason that the majority of women find that NOW has no relevance to them or their lives.. feminism no longer deals with the issues of women, rather, it focuses on a handful of pet issues that are favored by a privileged elite. This has become more and more the case since Kim Gandy took over the leadership of the organization.

There is the rare occasion that they might give lip service to the issues of poor women, but no effort, time or resources are devoted to them. Take your daughter to work day isn't much of an achievement either, especially if you scrub floors for a living.. and yes, American women do those jobs.

Feminists refuse to take on the issue of worker's rights, they don't care to waste their time in solidarity on anything that doesn't exist above the glass ceiling. Poor women are denied access to the health care they need, more women are starving in the US and I'm not talking about anorexia or bulemia, I'm talking about women who cannot afford to purchase adequate groceries to feed themselves or their children. I've known women who limited their food intake to one meal a day to extend the weeks food for their children. Food and vegetables are prohibitavely expensive these days, it's one of the reasons women are suffering from anemia at rates that rival those of days we thought long over. I once posted about this elsewhere on this blog, and a "feminist" quibbled with me on the subject.. she was more offended that anyone dared question the new feminist elite than she was about what should be woman's issue.. I guess that's why there are all those jokes about "sisterhood" being a myth.

I remember a while back feminist author Erica Jong was on Bill Maher's Real Time program, and she was speaking of the nanny who had raised her daughter. Jong, who back in the day said that the expectation for women to actually spend the time taking care of children was akin to slavery and oppression, actually had the gall to state on the air that "American women just don't value raising children the way Latina women do" I actually wasn't surprised that no one raised an eyebrow or that it wasn't commented on afterwards.. the hypocrisy, and the ego it took to not expect to be called on this..

I think the time for feminism being important has long passed. Not that discrimination against women doesn't exist any more, it's just that feminists are some of the perpetuators of this and alot of other ignorance. The time has come for human rights to be the paramount issue.

Sorry, but I and many others don't care to waste our time supporting something that doesn't support us in return. I think the lot of you need to be reminded that feminists didn't make achievements on their own. It was due to the help of poor women as well as those wealthy enough to write the big checks. It was due to men, of all races who believed their sisters, mothers, wives and daughters deserved equality. By the same token, women today have fathers, brothers, husbands or boyfriends, sons for whom they care about and feel passionately about their rights as well.

Feminist sociologists actually preach that the classes shouldn't intermingle more than necessary, they make racial stereotypes, and seek to pigeonhole us into little boxes. They preach revisionism and propaganda. They have become the epitome of what we used to view as a negative stereotype that needed to be refuted.

What is it that this third wave of feminists are advocating.  Surely it is more than the right to sexual objectification. 

The issues involved in the first and second waves were much clearer.

Hello Ms. Valenti, glad you're here and see my welcome at this link.

Destor23: It seems you're glossing over a host of dignity and sabotaging "necessary evil" presumptions long ignored and for which the behaviors you're talking about are camouflage. It gives women little credit for contributory uniqueness and due honor that they can "express themselves however they want" so long as they don't get equal pay; must embrace "choice" under economic policies that pressure same and thereon appearing strident or anti-baby; and otherwise put women on the defensive.

I think "if you can't beat the oppression, embrace it" is a pretty sorry way of approaching feminism. Fulfilling men's fantasies at the expense of women's dignity, honor, beauty, strength, education, standing, etc. isn't feminism, it's folly. It feeds into what is worst about men, and creates pig-men in equal measure to far-flung police-actions producing new terror recuits. If you call it a social guerilla move to get traction from a position of weakness, that would be your strongest argument, if it were truly necessary. However, for every Anna Nicole Smith there is a less-ethical or less-intelligent man conditioned by such "expressing themselves however they want" to see women as less valuable, less human, and, scorn-worthy. Guess how many of those men unfortunately have daughters and sons with multiple women, passing on their blight of mind?

When the plurality of men look women in the face and eyes, manhood will have been elevated by the right feminism to the honor for which he has potential. We need a feminism in this culture that will help men face women and themselves as beings of humanity. Feminism is as much about making men wiser as it is about doing the same for women.

Remember: The run on the bank scene in "It's a Wonderful Life."

Journalist: A person who writes about a topic he or she doesn't understand for people who don't have a clue about it either.

Although I consider myself a feminist, I agree that the issues that seemed so clear to me many years ago are less so now, because of how I see more and more men being objectified (and for that matter, animals, although I have no hope that many people will take that issue seriously in the near future). The fact is that our connection to nature has become so tenuous, that we seem to want to become stylized versions of humans. We're so busy looking in the mirror and comparing ourselves to some ideal, that we've lost the ability to appreciate the beauty of quirkiness and variety. It's too hard a problem to solve - I think it's probably easier to confront more concrete problems, like poverty and violence.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're talking about... I didn't make the argument you described at all.

I do argue for a certain amount of libertinism in a culture that's long been held back by its prudish and oppressive moralities, though.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I'm interested to know what feminists you're talking about.  If your concern is limited to the actions of orgs like NOW, I'd say that you're being a bit narrow in your understanding of feminist activism.  Just saying...

Interesting you should mention the porn princess T-shirt stuff.

When I was a young man feminists were up in arms about porn and the objectification of women. "Porn is the theory, rape is the practice." Porn, according to them, wasn't about the innocent joy of feeling horny it was about domination and control. (Take that two-dimensional three-color image!) Porn was seen, in an of itself as an inherently male evil. Virtually no distinction was made between genuine women-hating stuff and the classic centerfold. Feminists made a huge stink about this. One could say with abundent justification that they were quite frequently grating and strident about it too.

That has changed. Thanks to home video and the internet women, including feminists, have embraced porn. Nowadays you have feminists boasting about how dirty they are (Amanda Marcotte) and complaining about how there's not enough "servicing" of women compared to men (Echidnes of the Snakes). And women, who were supposedly degraded by objectification are today wearing the aforementioned Porn Star T-shirts and have turned Victoria's Secret into an international institution.

What this means is that either the porn-related male-bashing performed by feminists when feminism was overwhelmingly anti-porn and anti-objectification was slanderous bullshit or that presesnt-day feminists have betrayed their sisters and are colluding in their own victimization. Feminists seem stragely unaware of the situation.

I could give other examples, but perhaps one reason feminism is struggling is because over time it has shown itself to be an incoherent wolf-crying mosh.

Historically, there have been two ways for women to claim rights: 1) to argue that women are equal to men and 2) to argue that women deserve special treatment, because they are different from men.  This is a long-standing split in the women's movement in the U.S.  (As an example of that "long-standing," it really was called the "women's movement.) 

The first method argues, essentially, for a gender-blind society.  Think "equal pay for equal work."  I think it's characteristic of second-wave feminism.

The second approach was more prevalent earlier, based in a more patriarchal, protectiveness.  For example, when the franchise was extended to all white men, regardless of property, a substantial number of the thinkers of the day argued that women should be included too.  It would, the theory went, help mitigate the excesses of the unruly men.  Similarly, the first labor conditions law limited a female's work day to eight hours.  Only later was that expanded to cover men.

I think that much of the new-ish "lipstick feminism" is rooted in that second approach.  It's a celebration of womanhood and of femininity.  It's saying that it's all in a woman's choice.  That said, I don't think women have quite the latitude.

Not long ago, I attended a workshop on interviewing.  The presenter talked about the importance of making a good impression (duh!) and suggested taking only a leather portfolio with a notepad inside.  Under no circumstances should one take a briefcase or analogue.  And then he moved on to other topics.  I got stuck right there, wondering where I'd put my keys and cell phone and sunglasses.  This is a baby example, but it symbolizes the division between "feminine" and "professional," between "sexy / appealing" and "serious / worthy of consideration."

TrollB:

Objectification works for objects.

Humanity works for human beings. 

So I don't buy your false analogy between objectification of things versus persons. That analogy assumes people to be things, begging the question. Squelching the question by associating it with a decade doesn't solve it.

I think I understand what you're arguing re: objectification. If everyone does it, everyone is equally damaged, and no one can be purer than anyone else. That's a lot easier burden to bear, knowing that no one else is purer than you, that is, so you won't envy or hate them for being prudish. That would be bad, because it would then expose our pride . . . that ugly thing that kids are picking up on now in a feminized culture where girls can objectify each other, use cruelty to get 'cred' and treat men as items.

I think one of the best older American films that portrayed this mindset that is not so new is the one with Jack Lemmon, "The Apartment." Another contemporary one is "A Walk to Remember" with Mandy Moore, based on the Nicholas Sparks novel.

Also, people are born these days, they don't pop out of the mud.

If my thoughts are shrill, grating and strident to you, maybe it was caused by their contact with your exterior. Once the edges wear off, everything will sound resonant again, don't worry.

Define prudish. What does it mean so that it applies to all of us, and so that we can all understand your meaning and avoid this most horrible pitfall. Also, are all who are not licentious, prude? Those who avoid immodest dress, movies, speech and behavior? Fill out the meaning for me in your world, because glossing over things doesn't get us anywhere substantive.

If you want to discuss Harvard and equal pay, then discuss it. No one is stopping you.

I think it's overly simplistic to talk about feminism as some static thing. Like every movement, it has evolved over time. The second wave grew out of an entirely different social context; Friedan's The Female Eunuch provides a classic description of what it meant in the late 50's and early 60's to be female - wife, daughter or mother, but generally overlooked as a unique entity outside her relationship to others. The Myth of the Female Orgasm, anyone?

Where we are now with feminism has to do with the natural and mostly necessary evolution of movements, but also the backlash this particular one has engendered. Feminism touches on such a fundamental aspect of who we are, male or female - our gender identity, sexuality, how we will treat and be treated by same- and different-gender family, friends, bosses, coworkers. Because of its potential to impact the home as much as the workplace, it has always threatened the status quo as no other movement I can think of does. No wonder it's such a divisive topic of discussion.

Feminism has also gotten the same hatchet job as liberalism; I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not a liberal[feminist] but..." Both groups have been branded crazies and utopians and fringe to the point that many people actually believe that b.s.

I agree that the women's movement has done a poor job of reaching out to working class women and forming coalitions with other groups struggling for their place at the table. I also think the preoccupation of NOW and related groups with any candidate who is pro-choice, regardless of his/her party affiliation and otherwise regressive viewpoints is misguided to the max. I, too, would like to move beyond "feminism" to some "ism" that promotes basic dignity and respect for all creation;"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," as MLK said.

But we also need to recognize how much ground has been lost for women due to the backlash of the past 30+ years. Not only is Roe v. Wade increasingly at risk, but women are now being denied legitimately-prescribed birth control by meddling pharmacists who think they have the right to insert their "values" between a patient and her doctor (my cynical side wonders whether the hue and cry would be greater should those same pharmacists refuse to refill a Viagra prescription). Access to scientifically-based sex education and family planning is being choked off bit by bit. Pregnancy, planned or unplanned, is a uniquely female issue given the nature of....well, nature; which explains why reproductive choice has always been the linchpin of the women's movement and why feminism continues to be relevant and necessary.

Personally, I think it's past time to enshrine the ability to choose when or whether to bear a child as a fundamental human right, without which any claim of individual rights is mere self-delusion.

Sorry about the double post; I didn't see it go through even once, never mind twice!

centavo, I agree with much of your post, particularly the reminder that feminism is not static. 

That said, I don't believe that "reproductive choice has always been the linchpin of the women's movement."  There's been a women's movement since before birth control (as a medication) was invented!  Abortion was a key issue in second wave feminism, which featured some delightful sex theory.  Of course, some of those same theorists wanted to mechanize gestation, so that women would no longer bear the brunt of pregnancy and reproduction.  Which seems very counterintuitive to me. 

Anyway, from your post, it sounds like one cannot be a feminist and oppose abortion.  Is that an accurate reading?  (I do think that there's a difference, not merely a distinction, between abortion and contraceptives, but that's beside the point.) 

That type of litmus test worries me.  I guess I see the questions of birth control and abortion as . . . symptomatic, rather than the entire issue, if that makes sense.  So even if choice were "enshrine[d] . . . as a fundamental human right," I still think we'd need feminism.  Which is why "feminist = pro-choice" is not only problematic philosophically (at least for me) but also tactically stupid.

A really sharp post, on history and otherwise. Thanks for the walk-through on the subtleties of that interview I'd have passed up.

On the lipstick-feminism thing, the motive may be to celebrate one's sexual power, but the real result of that is to cause torment in other people. It's not about their sensibilities, it is about community cohesion and an individual who insists on damaging it for no reason other than to "celebrate oneself" or whatever. And so to the extent that lipstick feminism is this in-your-face look-at-me kind of thing, it seems also to be "new" in the immature and young sense. Once the body ages beyond that stage and one can't afford the nip and tuck, then there is a phase of realization.

Individual attributes can divide people, especially showing-off. Showing off is in bad form no matter who you are. It is more anti-social than it is social, and we all know this.

What makes it hard to sustain this argument, is that it catches folks in the middle of planning their competitive response to the others' showing off, i.e. where they feel they've been slighted and have to show that they too are competitive. This is a phenomenon of young-land. Yet someone must always be humbled in such a dynamic, and another elevated or self-elevated. None of that is really where its at. And so celebrities, who embody this dynamic exponentially, end up in rehab.

'Feminists' that I admire think things through age to age. They may not even wish to be typified as feminists. And certainly don't want to brag about it. It comes down to being a great human being who is a woman, and how this can be a great example for other women, and of course, men too.

Of all of the passions and temptations of youth, unexamined cruelty is among the most difficult to see in oneself, however, once seen and a lesson lived out of best amends, makes a young person much wiser and fit for leadership.

Men masking their performance anxieties behind the role of subjugator - - -

Give it up, guys. The third wave has arrived!

Fear. The male power structure (Cheney/Bush and other assorted idiots) are threatened by women who don't match a certain stereotype. Many women buy into this because they have been brainwashed by the system. Many women and men fortunately have enough critical thinking skills to see through the patriarchal society we live in for what it is.

Tom