intergenerational

Betty Friedan’s classic started with a survey of her college classmates some years after graduation. Fortysome years later, a book about The Feminine Mystique is starting out with a survey too. This just in from esteemed marriage scholar and friend Stephanie Coontz. Please pass it on — the survey is for younger women who came across the book in Women’s Studies courses as well as for those who read it when it first came out!

Writes Stephanie:

Thank you for agreeing to help in my study of the influence of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique.” I am trying to get a feel for how people in different time periods and situations reacted to this book, or merely to the general idea of a “feminine mystique,” whether or not they actually read the book. I have listed some questions below, but feel free to tell me anything you feel would be useful, and in as much detail as you choose.

If you heard the concept of “The Feminine Mystique” before — or without — reading the book, how and when did you hear of it? What did it mean to you? How did you react to the idea that there was a “feminine mystique”? Did a relative, spouse or friend read the book, and if so, what was their reaction? Did their reaction affect you in any way?

For people who read the book, can you tell me the year when you read it? Your age at the time? Were you married? Any children? Did you work for pay at the time? If so, at what? How did you come to read it?

Do you remember your overall reaction to the book? Did anything speak powerfully to you? Did anything anger you? What is your most vivid memory of reading it? Did it influence your life or relationships in any way?

Have you ever re-read the book? If so, why? Did your reaction change?

What is your ethnic or racial and socioeconomic background? Your current age and occupation? May I identify you by name if I quote from your response? Unless you explicitly give me permission to use your name in my book, I will not do so, nor will I offer details that might identify you.

I deeply appreciate any help you might give to this project. If there are questions I should have asked but neglected, please let me know that too. And if you have suggestions for other people I might contact, please let me know. You can e-mail your responses to coontzs@gmail.com

Hey – wait – before I sign off for the weekend, just wanted to post this MOST interesting portrait of feminism across generations by Susan Dominus today in the NYTimes.
Featured are Jessica Valenti of my alltime favorite blog feministing.com, and Marcia Pappas, who took over as president of the New York State chapter of NOW the same year Jessica founded the blog (2004). Pappas was the one who issued a press release this week proclaiming that Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama was a betrayal of women. Feministing.com responded (on the blog), “Wow. This is completely unhinged, and frankly, mind-boggling….All I can say is, NOW-NY does not speak for me. And it does not speak for all feminists.”

The NYTimes article, called “Feminists Find Unity is Elusive,” ends with this:

“The two women should probably talk. Surely, there’s a message board somewhere big enough for both of them. We already know they have a lot in common.”

I’d like to see that conversation take place. In fact, I’d like to moderate. I know, I know, I should be careful what I wish for. But seriously, women across generations need to talk to each other, and not just at each other. Which is what we all more often do.

And please note: I took the feministing icon from the left side of the banner over there so as to be sure it does not look like the mudflap girl is giving NOW the finger. Though I admit it was iconographically tempting, that’s not what I’m about.

My friend and personal hero Stephanie Coontz is working on a cool new project and I’ve offered to help her recruit. She’s writing a study of the influence of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique. It’s a biography, not of Betty Friedan, but of the book itself – its history and influence over the decades (or, perhaps, its lack of influence after a particular date). Stephanie is eager to hear from younger women, as well as people who read the book when it first came out, about how it impacted them–or in some cases, among those who read it later, disappointed them–then.

If you are willing to talk about this, or can direct Stephanie to someone else who might, you can send your memories directly, or Stephanie can send you a few survey questions. Please address correspondence to coontzs@msn.com.

More excellent follow-up to Steinem’s New York Times op-ed now up over at HuffPo from third waver (and GS goddaughter) Rebecca Walker, titled “The Fence.” As in on the fence. As in the fence often constructed between second-wave and third-wave feminists. Writes Walker,

Young women are not stupid. The idea that young women are too naive to realize the pervasiveness of sexism is an old Second Wave trope used to dismiss and discredit an entire generation, many of whom now support Obama because he doesn’t insult them. As a result, there are a few women lining up behind the “feminist” placard, but many more running in the other direction.

Yes. And it’s so very important that we are talking about this. In my effort to keep us focused and informed, too, on additional issues, check out Paul Krugman’s latest column on the candidates’ stances on economic policy in light of the latest round of bad news. Explains Krugman,

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens….

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

So here’s my concern: Third-wave feminism is about incorporating into one’s feminism other movements like those focused on the environment, and, of course, class, and progressive economic policies. And it’s complicated. The very fact of a black man and a white woman running for the nation’s top office seems to be forcing women of color into what was once thought the narrow second-wave position of having to choose.

Having written a book on feminism and the age gap, it’s ENDLESSLY interesting to me the way younger women’s votes are being taken as a barometer of the state of feminism. To wit, Michael Barone begins his U.S. News article, “Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton,” like so:

“It’s interesting that in Iowa, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama by a wide margin among younger women. The idea of a first woman president evidently is not of great appeal to them. I think this is part of a larger story about the decline, or perhaps the maturation, of American feminism.”

As Ann over at feministing notes, the reasons one chooses one’s candidate are often much more complicated than that.

Regardless, anyone seen the breakdown of women voters by age in New Hampshire yet? Just curious. I know I gotta write more about this somewhere…so many things to write, so little time! Alas.

Meanwhile, be sure to check out the February issue of More for a forum I coordinated in which women in the public eye weigh in with their thoughts on Hillary. Their responses may surprise you.

Back in September, I posted on those Gallup polls that found younger women supporting Hillary in greater numbers than older women. Remember those polls? Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect did a nice report on younger women’s Hillary enthusiasm a while ago too. In Iowa, things went the other way. Whether this trend play out nationally remains to be seen. But folks are already talking that way. Writes Gloria Steinem in today’s NYTimes op-ed:

“What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”

That older women are more radical argument–I just don’t want to believe it! And today, this young(ish) woman is coming out with an announcement: I’m supporting Hillary. I join Veronica–see comments in post below. Yesterday’s “iron my shirt” assholes being one–but just one–of the things that pushed me over the edge. (Addendum: And if you think those hecklers were isolates, see comments, below.)

Gloria is supporting Hillary too. Says she:

“I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.”

Here’s to two terms for Hillary, two for Obama. And hell, if Edwards is man enough to take back his real-politicians-don’t-cry comment, two for him then too.

So says my gal and resident Gen Y-er Courtney. Writes C:

The ugly truth about superwomen, my generation has come to realize, is that they tend to be exhausted, self-sacrificing, unsatisfied, and sometimes even self-loathing and sick. Feminism—and the progress it envisions—was never supposed to compromise women’s health. It was supposed to lead to richer, more enlightened, authentic lives characterized by a deep sense of wellness.

Read the rest, and more, over at The New Statesman this week, where Courtney is blogging it up on behalf of feministing, which was asked to elucidate why they care deeply about a particular spiritual or intellectual philosophy. Courtney is writing her take on, as she says, what feminism ain’t, what it is, and what it could be.

Just saw this article in Women’s eNews about that National Women’s Conference 30th anniversary conference at Hunter that I attended part of the other week. Again, while intentions were good, I found the whole thing kind of depressing, as this account kind of details:

Held at a high point of the women’s movement in the United States, Houston ’77 marked the only time the federal government ever sponsored a gathering of women for equality. With $5 million in funding from Congress organizers drew more than 20,000, including three first ladies–Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford and Lady Bird Johnson.

This time only a few politicians made the event.

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton sent her regrets from her campaign in Iowa.

Media coverage was thin, with most of the coverage going to comedian, television and film star Rosie O’Donnell. And the attention wasn’t on what she had to say on the subject of women. It was more about her losing the deal to host a talk show on MSNBC.

Houston ’77 served as a beacon that lit up the organized women’s movement of its time, and Freedom on Our Terms was designed to rekindle those sparks and galvanize activists across the generations.

“There has to be a re-energizing, a re-igniting between younger women, older women and women in between,” conference leader Liz Abzug said as the two-day event wound up. “I want you to spread the word: Feminism is alive and well and moving into the 21st century.”

Yeah, well, you already know how I feel about that. (Are you seeing the young women in this picture? Cuz I’m not. Though they were definitely in the audience. Hmmm.)

On the up side, participants agreed to develop a 10-point “feminist action plan” to present to the presidential candidates, who will be asked to commit to implementing it during their first 100 days in office. According to Women’s eNews:

Among the issues that could make the top 10 list: elimination of abstinence-only sex education; paid leave for family care; improved child care; ratification of the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; national single-payer health care; reform of the Federal Communications Commission to reverse media consolidation; changes in the tax code to put a value on labor spent for homemaking; and renewal of the fight to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, reintroduced into Congress this year.

All of it sounds pretty good to me, but do young folk know/care about the ERA? Would its passage at this point be a largely symbolic gesture, or would it actually change the quality of young women’s lives? I wonder.

So this Saturday I spent some time at the Freedom on Our Terms conference, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the National Women’s Conference in Houston back in 1977. A few great quips from the afternoon plenary:

Rosie O’Donnell on the Bush Administration: “What they’re feeding you is McDonalds. It gives you diarrhea and ultimately it kills you.”

Rosie on Mos Def: “Mos Def said the best line on Bill Maher: ‘From Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, they’re passing around the Presidency like a party joint.”

Rosie on the solution to it all: “Ingest art.”

Liz Holtzman on Bella Abzug in Congress: “They made her take her hat off, but they couldn’t shut her up.”

The spirit of Bella infused the afternoon. It was moving. The goal of the conference was to create “a 21st century agenda for action,” updating the planks from 1977. Two young women, Lala Wu and Kate Collier, coauthored a fabulous-looking document for the conference, called “The National Plan of Action: Then and Now.” It’s a great status report. Tons of younger women were in attendance. But I was frustrated by the lack of real intergenerational conversation during the bits that I saw.

It’s easy to be a critic, and I know how much goes into planning this kind of event. So hats off to the organizers, and I know that hearts are in absolutely the right place. But it bothered me that the line-up of younger women at the afternoon plenary were left with only a few minutes each to talk about their organizations, and that there was no time left for them to dialog amongst themselves, or with older feminists. The reason for the time crunch? From what I could tell, the movement veterans slated to speak–and there were many of them–had used up all the time and things were running late. But maybe there was another reason too? Maybe Rosie showed up late? (I came midway through her speech.) In any event, it was frustrating not to hear more from the young women on the stage at the end.

The media panel I went to, on the other hand, was fantastic–Laura Flanders, Emily McKahnn from The Motherhood, Sonia Ossioro (Pres. of NOW-NYC, which recently landed a media coup of their own), and Lauren Brill, a kick-ass young stringer for the WNBA. The room was so full, we were sitting on desks and window sills. The crowd spanned the ages, and the discussion could have gone on for hours. I kind of wish it had. I would have loved to have heard more from some of those in attendance–Shelby Knox was there! I’m looking forward to more of this kind of discussion at this year’s Women, Action, and the Media Conference, on March 28-30, at MIT.

(Photo cred. Check out this and some great photos from Houston 1977 here.)

Steven Heller has an interesting bit in the NYT Book Review on a new book that explains the 1960s to kids. Writes Heller,

“The ’60s are often portrayed now as a permissive, hedonistic moment when sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll reigned supreme. Though all that is true, they were also an incredibly volatile period when youth culture challenged politics and society in ways that continue to exert influence. The decade was more than a mere freak show of baby-boomer rebels. It was a time when young people acted positively, as individuals and en masse, to redress a slew of grievances. So it’s about time that today’s kids were introduced to the period in a manner that is not simply a reprise of camp clichés.”

The titles under discussion are a new book version of Puff the Magic Dragon and a book called America Dreaming, by Laban Carrick Hill. Full disclosure: my not-quite-hippie parents sang me Peter, Paul, and Mary songs and I still remember every single word.