feminism

Check out this GORGEOUS collage over at the new collaborate blog Fourth Wave Feminism, which launched on the eve of the Democratic National Convention this year.  I just had to share:

While you’re at it, check out Fourth Wave’s mission statement, here.

As a chronicler of feminism, of course I’m fascinated by the term. Here’s Fourth Wave’s post on the third (wave, that is).  My basic position: I don’t care what we call it, let’s just keep on doing it.  Fourth, five, sixth, sixteenth….bring it on.

To veterans, these divisions get tiresome, and I have seen how they can keep us from coming together.  But IMHO, the rolling of waves and the recognition of intergenerational difference in any social movement is natural, and essential to its growth.  I’m not seeing the same tensions between the “new” and the “old” with this fourth as there seemed to be when the term “third wave” first came about in the early 1990s.  (Unless I’m missing something here?)  At the same time, as the savvy ladies over at the UK feminist blog, The F-Word, remind us, many of the aims of so-called second-wave feminism, both here and there, still haven’t been achieved.  So boo to generational in-fighting.  We’ve got far too much at stake.  And hence, a caveat: fourth, fifth, sixth, bring it on, but let’s all keep our eyes on the larger prize.

I write all about this waving of feminism (ah, the oceanography of it all…) in a book, of course, with a hot pink cover.  And the WomenGirlsLadies and I have been having a wonderful experience taking it all on the road.  Meanwhile, back in medialand, New York Magazine did a piece in April titled “The Feminist Reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the Fourth Wave” and there was an article in Utne Reader back in 2001 called “Feminism’s Fourth Wave.” Journalist Julie Leupold is doing a special project on “Fourth Wave Feminism” over at Porfolio at NYU.  And so the public conversation and feminism and its waves continues.

Once again, I’m curious…what do others think of the term?  Interesting conversation going on in comments, across the pond.

PS. Feminism, in some corners, has been known to eat its young. So to the Fourth Wave blog– “exploring feminism in the 21st century and grappling with the continued gender inequity in America and the world”–a hearty welcome again to the blogosphere! And speaking of exploring, do check out the 68th Carnival of Feminists, hosted at Fourth Wave.

Ok, I can write that sensational headline cause I wasn’t there this time. But my fellow WGLs Courtney Martin, Gloria Feldt, and Kristal Brent Zook were, plus the amazing Maria Teresa Peterson (who stepped in for me – thank you MTP!).

For those who haven’t heard of this yet, Women, Girls, Ladies: A Fresh Conversation Across Generations is a traveling panel promoting intergenerational feminist dialogue across the land.  We speak at campuses and organizations (and are available to come to YOU! Rebecca Rosenberg, rebecca@parchitamedia.com, is our contact lady).  Here is Miss Courtney with a recap for us all:

We had an incredible experience yesterday in Kansas City. First we did a very interactive, intergenerational workshop over at University of Missouri-Kansas City where we met fascinating local women (many of them named Linda?!) from the YWCA, The American Association of University Women, the incredible UMKC Women’s Center staff and board, and so many more.

One of the big insights that came up from that experience was a question:

When do we, as feminists, confront sexism directly and when do we deal with it indirectly instead?

It seemed like so many of the experiences and anecdotes that women of all generations brought to the table were focused on this difficult negotiation. In order to get the progress we so desire, do we swallow some of our ire when a sexist guy says something inane? Or is it our responsibility as loud and proud feminists to call him out regardless of the fall out?

As if that conversation wasn’t rich enough, we still had the big event to come. Yesterday evening we had a panel in honor of Ruth Margolin, Founding Director of the UMKC Women’s Center. There was a huge crowd (300+) in the absolutely beautiful Kansas City Public Library-Plaza Branch. After wine and cheese we migrated into the newly renovated auditorium and got to hear some wonderful words about Ruth Margolin’s fiery character. Apparently she was never afraid of being a loud and proud feminist! It was so special to be having our dialogue in honor of her legacy.

The audience brought up a range of issues; everything from women in the military, pay equity, body image, abortion, Clinton’s infidelity scandal, Sarah Palin, and racial tensions within feminism were a part of the conversation.

Thanks to all who contributed your insights and questions. And thanks to everyone at UMKC, especially Brenda Bethman, for making this really exquisite event and experience possible! And a special, special thanks to Maria Teresa Petersen, who stepped in for the much missed Deborah Siegel with grace and eloquence. Maria Teresa was fantastic. Check out her organization, Voto Latino, here.

*The Kansas City Star did a great write up of the event. So did The Pitch, Kansas City’s weekly, but check out the title! “Meow Mix”? Come on people, this is exactly the point of our panel. When men disagree, it’s called a disagreement. When women disagree, it’s called a cat fight. Thank goodness we’re reclaiming the frame!

–Courtney Martin

Crossposted at WomenGirlsLadies.

Katha Pollitt has a great column about what Sarah Palin has left for us. Just as this week (“happy obama week!”) has given us heart, Katha has given us another way to see that things are looking up… and a way to understand how our talking and talking and talking about SP was good for feminism. My favorite passage addresses questions we’ve been discussing at gwp here (and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here) all fall:

So the first way Palin was good for feminism is that she helped us clarify what it isn’t: feminism doesn’t mean voting for “the woman” just because she’s female, and it doesn’t mean confusing self-injury with empowerment, like the Ellen Jamesians in The World According to Garp (I’ll vote for the forced-childbirth candidate, that’ll show Howard Dean!). It isn’t just feel-good “you go, girl” appreciation of female moxie, which I cheerfully acknowledge Palin has by the gallon. As I wrote when she was selected, if she were my neighbor I would probably like her–at least until she organized with her fellow Christians to ban abortion at the local hospital, as Palin did in the 1990s. Yes, feminism is about women getting their fair share of power, and that includes the top jobs–but that can’t take a back seat to policies that benefit all women: equality on the job and the legal framework that undergirds it, antiviolence, reproductive self-determination, healthcare, education, childcare and so on. Fortunately, women who care about equality get this–dead-enders like the comically clueless Lynn Forester de Rothschild got lots of press, but in the end Obama won the support of the vast majority of women who had supported Hillary Clinton.

Read the whole column and enjoy.

–Virginia Rutter

After an unbelievable night last night, let’s keep the conversation going tonight. We want you to join us online here at Girl with Pen at 7PM TONIGHT to watch the first ever Feminist Town Forum.

The Center for New Words will be hosting a Feminist Town Forum of national leaders and feminists to discuss what happened on Election Day and where we go from here. We will broadcast the town forum here at Girl with Pen, starting at 7PM TONIGHT. In addition, I (Kristen Loveland), Deborah Siegel, and Glorida Feldt will be teaming up to give live commentary on the town hall, and we invite you to add your voices as well. Basically, we will create a post with the live broadcast and hold a discussion in the comments section. Looking forward to seeing you here tonight!

Full Details:

political campaigns , politics

Robin Morgan wrote recently about “faux feminists,” namely in the context of those who support Sarah Palin’s candidacy for vice president. While, as I have pointed out, I think a Palin vice presidency would prove detrimental for women’s status in America, particularly because of her fiercely narrow anti-choice position, to bisect women into “true” vs. “fake” feminists (sound familiar?) without any room for contingency is unworkable in a society where women are represented by a variety of identities. In this case, I think Morgan needed to make a distinction between political feminism and personal feminism.

Political feminism needs to promote policies which, at the fount, support the advancement of women from a variety of disparate backgrounds, including different ethnicities, economic situations, regional and religious experiences. It needs to fight for women in those areas of society where they experience distinct disadvantages and discrimination. But it especially needs to support female Choice, particularly in sexuality and reproduction, above and beyond all else: the Choice to marry whomever she wants and the Choice to have or not have a child contingent on her personal circumstances.

A politician who supports women’s economic and political advancement, but not their bodily sovereignty, is incapable of representing feminism on an American political stage. Palin refuses to look beyond a personal, religiously-motivated decision on her part to understand why an urban teenager with a bright college future ahead of her, or a college junior, or a woman with little economic support, or a mid-career woman for whom it’s just not the right time, or a rape victim, must have the Choice to end an unwanted pregnancy. The difference between a personal and political feminism hinges on the question of whom it affects–and while Palin’s views on abortion may be right for her, they are not right for the majority of women in this country. The personal may always be political, but the political should not always be personal.

On the other hand, despite what I would describe as a viscerally negative reaction to Palin’s candidacy, I don’t think we should delineate stringent standards for who is a “feminist.” “I am a feminist.” It’s an expression we don’t hear enough. Based on pure numbers, we should be encouraging as many women as possible to express this sentiment: “I am a feminist.” At base, it means that you are actively working for women’s advancement, independence, and equality, either in your own life or at large. Given how diverse our society is, that can take on any number of meanings.

My grandmother is a devout Catholic, anti-choice, and very pro-Palin (we’ve been studiously avoiding the topic for the past few months). At the same time, she pulled herself out of 1950s housewife-dom to go back to college at age 36 with two kids at home, became a first-time teacher at age 40, and through various family crises has shown herself to be a fiercely independent and modern woman who refused to cede ground to males in the family. Would I want her deciding American policy on women’s issues for the next four years? No way. Would I love it if she called herself a feminist and would I think it true? Absolutely. In fact, sometimes I call her a feminist and while she’ll sigh “Nooo,” you can hear pride in her voice. “Feminist” can be a very empowering term.

“Feminist” also demands context. The first-wave feminists were hardly pro-choicers, but they were extremely effective politically for their time. Radical and middle-class feminists in the second wave had radically different ideas on tactics and outcomes, but both groups were feminists in their own way. Which feminism was more effective for American women at the time is a different conversation. If we stick to a too-narrow version of “feminist” then we leave out a significant number of women who are trying to carve out how to be feminists on their own terms, in their own societies, in their own religious contexts even.

There are Jewish Orthodox feminists, who have made great strides in female education, grassroots religious practices, and tefillah (prayer) groups [You can read about it in: “Women in Orthodoxy: Conventional and Contentions” by Norma Baumel Joseph in Women Remaking American Judaism, ed. Riv-Ellen Prell, 2007: Wayne State University Press). While the headway may seem small to those who don’t adhere to Orthodox beliefs, why would we deny women who have sought to effect changes within the contexts of their religion the right to call themselves Feminist?

It’s a matter of semantics, but to prevent us from wasting time over accusatory, and sometimes riskily exclusive arguments of “Who’s a feminist? Are you a feminist? Am I a feminist? Is she? Is he?” We should take “Feminist” off the grand, binary scale and ask instead about American political feminism. Sarah Palin, through a mixture of savvy and chutzpah, has become a politically powerful woman and within her context, I can understand why she considers herself a feminist. But does she represent feminism in the same way Hillary does? Will she work effectively in political office for the betterment of the diverse body of American women? In short: hell no.

–Kristen Loveland

Perhaps someone forwarded you this wacky protest song in support of McCain-Palin by Hank Williams, Jr., that’s going around. Here’s a favorite line from this Palin anthem:

“If you mess with her cubs, she’s gonna take off the gloves. It’s an American female tradition.”

My friend who forwarded me the lyrics quipped: “For me, this really hit the sweet spot of country music and radical feminist politics.” As another friend said, “Hey! It’s McFeminism!”

McFeminism, Red State feminism, call it what you will, but that sweet spot is exactly the point where gender politics and social class politics intersect.

Gender politics for working-class families often play out differently than do gender politics for middle-class families. Stephanie Coontz’s recent column goes into excellent detail, illustrating that, “how women address gender-based reproductive, sexual, and family interests varies by their class position and their personal options outside the family.”

So, for example, working-class folks, historically, are somewhat more likely to endorse traditional gender roles. In working-class families, according to this example, there’s a more traditional division of household labor. And as researchers show, working-class versus middle-class families even do sex differently. (Check out Coontz’s article “The Romantic Life of Brainiacs” for an analysis of sex and social class; page through to stuff on oral sex just for fun.)  Remember, of course, these are only statistical tendencies, not rigid patterns. They give us clues about how to sort out different feminisms.

So Sarah Palin has the promise to appeal to those who admire traditional feminine resourcefulness. In the traditional gender roles universe, the strong mama who does what it takes to defend her cubs (like a pitbull with lipstick) is a feminist heroine.

That’s powerful: I think of my mother who kept a gorgeously clean and attractive house, worked full time (sometimes at more than one job), finished college and went to graduate school, took care of four kids, tolerated an underemployed spouse, and seated the whole crew for breakfast and dinner every single day. This is an American Hero that we all can revere—maybe not as much as a prisoner of war, but certainly as much as Mom and apple pie. SP has qualities that remind us of our old fashioned, wage-earning, home-making, second-shift working moms—the very moms who gave many of us younger feminists greater courage to break the mold.

Luckily (for intergenerational harmony) my own Annie-get-your-gun kind of mom sees Sarah Palin as someone who, in the end, simply isn’t qualified for the job. In truth, my mom really thinks SP is pretty selfish, willing to do or say anything to get what she wants for herself—not that different from her running mate.

That might just be my mom. But it sure does make me think….

I can recognize and honor diversity among feminisms, but that doesn’t mean I–or my mom–can’t judge quality.

–Virginia Rutter

Photo from People magazine

The other day I wrote a post saying that Sarah Palin could call herself a feminist if she wanted to (more on that next week), but that she did not practice a viable feminism. I’ve previously written about how Palin’s policies are distinctly anti-women.

Women have the right to sexual freedom and privacy as well as the right to economic and social independence and advancement; a lack of reproductive rights represents a disconnect preventing women from fully taking advantage of either. A woman cannot be both sexually active and fulfill her economic/social plans without the assurance of birth control and the choice to abort if needed. In Slate, Linda Hirshman cited statistics on female teenagers’ economic prospects if they give birth at an early age:

The fact sheets from the well-respected National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy describe a bleak prospect: Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21. Less than 2 percent of mothers who have children before age 18 will earn a college degree by age 30, compared with 9 percent of young women who wait until age 20 or 21 to have children.

But wait, there’s more: “Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don’t give birth until after age 20.”

I think it’s obvious that women must have access to reproductive choice. And because lack of information can have such an egregious and detrimental impact on a young woman’s future social standing, we must be prepared to speak openly and honestly about sexuality and the effect of unexpected or too-early pregnancy on women’s economic future in our society.

Yet, when it comes down to reproductive justice, the McCain camp is unwilling to address the reality of women’s multiple circumstances in today’s America. Palin doesn’t believe in abortion unless a woman’s life is at risk. McCain has created some fantasy world where thousands of women making up “illnesses” and “health risks” to fetch themselves abortions, using “air quotes” to describe women’s “health” concerns. Though Palin and McCain may claim that they are concerned about women’s issues, they have no idea about the needs of the majority women in America. It’s a dark realization, an especially dark one with November 4th looming.

But to add some levity, take a look at the ever-awesome Samanta Bee’s take on John McCain on women’s “health”:

(Wait for it, wait for it… It’s in there)

Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms. magazine and a Democrat, has been on Palin’s plane (EDIT: as a paid consultant) since soon after she was nominated and has offered a defense of the intelligence, feminism, and confidence of Palin in a piece at The Daily Beast titled “Sarah Palin’s a Brainiac.”

Of course this has created some furor in the feminist world, so here are my two cents. While Palin seems to have hit more of a stride now, all of her early exhibitions of intellectual work and curiosity showed someone unprepared for the job of VP, someone who had never thought about issues beyond the Alaskan borders, and someone who showed a lack of intellectual curiosity. Elaine may see someone different on the plane, but the public decides based on what they’re given access to, and their access to Palin has been minimal and, in the beginning, unsettling.

The other issue here is “What Is Feminism.” I believe that Palin thinks she is working for women–and to a certain extent her candidacy is good for feminism, forcing conservatives to support a powerful female candidate. Of course, we’ll see what the narrative on her “ability” and “intelligence” turns out to be after the election, when, if McCain loses, his camp may turn on her. Clearly in her own personal life, she has shown moxie and a great deal of confidence (over-confidence in taking on a job she wasn’t really ready for yet?).

Personally, I would call a woman who designates herself a feminist and who currently supports women’s progress in many areas of social/economic/political life, but not a woman’s right to choose, a feminist. I’m not sure who has the right to give or take that designator away, and I don’t think there’s a real point in fighting over the moniker itself. However, I do think we need to determine what is a viable feminism .

In our era, a woman, like any man, will have to work hard to achieve her desired social and economic standing. At the same time she has the right to a private sexuality. As a result, she may choose to prevent pregnancy or abort if pregnancy occurs at an undesired time, a time which will prevent her from achieving the social/economic independence and power that Palin claims women have a right to go after. Reproductive choice is today inherently tied into women’s status, and thus Palin’s feminism, a feminism that does not give a woman that right to choose, is not a viable feminism for our age.

Image Credit

Amnesty International has reported that an American-Iranian student (she holds both American and Iranian nationality) has been arrested in Iran while doing work on the Iranian women’s movement for her Master’s thesis. Amnesty reports

Esha Momeni, a student and women’s rights defender, was arrested by Iranian security officials on 15 October. She is being held in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, which is run by the Ministry of Intelligence. She has not been charged with any offense, and is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment.

Esha Momeni is a graduate student at California State University, Northridge, in the USA. She is also a member of a branch of the Campaign for Equality in California. She had been in Iran for two months to visit her family and to conduct research for her Master’s degree thesis on the Iranian women’s movement, for which she had conducted video interviews with members of the Campaign for Equality in Tehran.

More information on Esha Momeni as well as addresses to write letters to protesting her detainment can be found here and in an article at the Chronicle.

Other ways to help (thanks to Sharon Collingwood for sending these out to the Women’s Studies List):

There is an online petition here.

The American Islamic Congress also has a petition.

The World Organization Website has more on the story.

This activist site has a video that could be useful in the classroom (1:46 in length).

There is a student group on Facebook.

CSUN’s statement.

To cap off your day, here’s Framingham State College’s Virginia Rutter with a great post on what exactly Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to get about “feminism” and “sexism” and how this allows her to erroneously invoke identity politics in her favor.–Kristen

Sarah Palin wasn’t the first to be confused about what is sexism—and what is feminism. Remember This is Spinal Tap, the rock mockumentary from the eighties? In an oft-quoted scene, dufus rocker Nigel Tufnel responds to the news that the next Spinal Tap album won’t be released because their cover is sexist with, “Well, so what? What’s wrong with bein’ sexy?” When, earlier this week, Palin said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women,” she was missing the point—and the words—sort of the way Nigel did. Her so-called feminism is really a form of sexism. She revealed just how much her candidacy is about identity politics—not issues.

In response to Palin’s misquote of Madeline Albright, Kristen asked, “Am I going to hell?”and clarified that feminism—in the sense that Albright meant it, and that many who are part of feminist movements intend—is about reducing inequality (all kinds!).

We don’t get to ask our candidates too many questions. But a friend offered a question for Palin, in light of her voicing the imperative of women for women: “If Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee instead of Obama, would you, Governor Palin, be voting for a Democrat this year?”

Well, of course not. Because politics is done best when it is about ideas and interests, not passions and identities. (Thanks A.H!)

–Virginia Rutter