intergenerational

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.

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

Here to bring you your monthly insight into the youth perspective is Courtney Martin with a post on how young people are getting involved in politics…by targeting their grandparents for the Obama vote. Courtney’s awesome column, Generation Next, appears the third Monday of every month. –Kristen

One of my favorite get out the vote efforts by youth this fall is, hands down, The Great Schlep. The young, civic-minded, and Jewish recognized that they had a profound power to influence a very special population in a very special swing state: grandparents in Florida. And thus the Great Schlep was born.

Here’s the always controversial Sarah Silverman on the basic concept:

There are a few things that I deeply admire about this project. First and foremost, I love that a bunch of young people took stock of the power they already possessed (being beloved by their well-intentioned, if not a bit conservative grandparents) and figured out a way to use that power for political leverage. This is the best of youth activism at work—a homegrown, grassroots exercise of power in innovative ways.

I also appreciate that, while it springs from a place of cultural and religious identity, it serves a much broader cause. Jewish youth didn’t wait until there was a fantastic Jewish candidate to start organizing, schlepping, and registering/influencing voters; they participated in a long, beautiful tradition of Jewish activists promoting the best interest of a “minority” and, in turn, their own vision of a more just society.

And finally, they used shocking humor and a sort of wonderful sarcasm about their own culture to get the word out. Some have found the racial implications offensive, which I totally understand. I happen to think it’s pretty amazing social commentary. In any case, they got your attention didn’t they?

–Courtney Martin

While each candidate in Wednesday night’s debate gave his stump speech on Roe v. Wade, only Obama mentioned the need for better sex education in the school system, and that was quickly skedaddled by a change in topic. Put another way, as politicians are such fans of doing, the two candidates spent more time discussing whether Obama did or did not launch his campaign in Bill Ayers’ living room than discussing how they plan to battle rising teen pregnancy and STD rates. As Amy Schalet pointed out in a Washington Post article last week, “High teen pregnancy rates result in part from our inability to talk honestly and wisely about teen sexuality.” So where are we left if our two presidential candidates are never asked to talk about it at all?

Of course, part of the problem is that very few people besides the Religious Right, NARAL Pro-Choicers, and well, those who read this blog, are asking these questions. Sure, there are other things on our mind: the economy, Iraq, etc. But our general populace’s inability to ask basic, rational questions about the way their children are taught about sex in schools, and therefore their ceding of these decisions to a minority base, speaks to larger problems in our culture: an inability to approach sex in an individualized and normalized way.

Dagmar Herzog talks in Sex in Crisis about the anxiety with which America adults in the twenty-first century approach sex. In the nineties, most Americans seemed relatively satisfied with their sex lives. Sure it wasn’t always the best sex ever; sometimes there was boredom, or lack or desire, or lack of orgasm, or any of the other minor dissatisfactions that are normal in a human sexuality that can only be as perfect as the person experiencing it. Sometimes there were fears about love and emotional connection. But of course, again, why wouldn’t there be? Now, with articles and drug campaigns asking you whether you are experiencing a tepid orgasm, erectile dysfunction, porn addiction, you name it, American adults are constantly told to compare their sexuality to others and ask themselves, “Is there something wrong with my sex life?” As Herzog writes:

What is going on is an ideological assault on something pretty fundamental: the most intimate and personal aspects of sex. It worms its way into the core of the psyche by playing on the imperfections and emotional confusion that so often accompany sex. Rather than helping people get comfortable with the unruliness of desire, the current trendy idea is to freak people out.

Now, if adults are experiencing this level of anxiety about their own sexual lives, imagine how such over-scrutiny and neuroticism is translated to a population who has long been subject to excessive sexual observation in America. If sex can is psychologically and emotionally damaging for adults, given the especial “unruliness” of the teenage sex drive and a whole life during which this psychological damage can manifest itself, it must be doubly so for teens.

But what if we began to treat not only adult sexuality, but teenage sexuality, as normal? In a qualitative study comparing conceptions of teenage sexuality in the Netherlands and the United States, Amy Schalet documents how American adults dramatize teenage sexuality as hormone-raging, out-of-control, and irrational. (Part of the study is published as “Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality? at Medscape General Medicine.) Dutch parents, on the other hand, recognize teenage relationships as legitimate and work to normalize sexuality.

Guess which country has the lower teenager pregnancy and STD rates.

more...

Live, from George Washington last Thursday, it’s Girl w/ Pen and two of the young women from the Women’s Leadership Program. (Am I really that short?!) Those WLP gals are not only gorgeous, they’re whip smart. The WomenGirlsLadies and I had an amazing time during the Q&A part of our panel that evening — the questions we got could have kept us all going all night.

Deborah here. Last night Gloria Feldt, Kristal Brent Zook, Courtney Martin and I spoke together at George Washington University’s Elizabeth J. Somers Women’s Leadership Program and I have to say, we all feel tremendously encouraged by the amazing women we met there and just a bit proud of our own little quartet for prompting such great questions and reflections from the audience. Topics of conversation during the Q&A included: race vs. gender in the election, work/family balance, public policy approaches to rape and sexual assault, “opting out,” dealing with anti-feminist crap from insecure boys, beauty standards and their sources, abortion, equality vs. elevating women above men, women in politics, intersection feminism etc.

Thank you to Dean Heller, Sam, and all those that joined us in the conversation. The future is looking pretty bright…This pic is from a previous talk, but photos from GW coming soon!

(crossposted at WomenGirlsLadies)

Apologies for the lack of posting today! A GWP anomaly, and I missed you all!

I spent the day traveling to Washington DC, where my intergenerational feminist panel spoke tonight at George Washington University before the Women’s Leadership Program–and an amazing group of women those WLPers are. Pictures coming soon. Tomorrow, we’re keynoting at the Association for Women in Communications conference, and I’m excited to attend some of their sessions (and swim in the hotel pool) as well.

More from me tomorrow, I promise!

The Feminist Press’ Gloria Jacobs and Feministing.com’s Courtney Martin Discuss Sarah Palin from Brian Lehrer Live on Vimeo.

Nicely done.