New York Magazine, which is never afraid to wrap up the lowbrow and sell it as art and vice versa (not that this article applies to that synopsis), has a long, but very thought-provoking article by Amanda Fortini about whether Clinton’s candidacy in the US represents, or has uncovered, the fourth wave of feminism.
I haven’t written much about the presidential campaign here, since this is a site about romance novels and there are few things less romantic in my opinion than the current election campaigns, but since we often deal with women’s issues, and the changing and difficult-to-pin-down definition of “feminism,” I know there are a few folks here who might find it interesting. Feel free to skip this one if such discussions turn you off.
Partially a political analysis and partially an examination of where feminism is, if it’s anywhere, the article made me sit and stare into space for a good few minutes in ponderous thought:
Who wanted to be the statistic-wielding shrew outing every instance of prejudice and injustice? Most women prefer to think of themselves as what Caroline Bird, author of Born Female, has called “the loophole woman”—as the exception. The success of those women is frequently cited as evidence that feminism has met its goals. But too often, the exceptional woman is also the exception that proves the rule.
Indeed, it might be said that the postfeminist outlook was a means of avoiding an unpleasant topic. “They don’t want to have the discussion,” a management consultant who worked at a top firm for nearly a decade told me, referring to her female colleagues. “It’s like, ‘I’m trying to have a level playing field here.’ ” Who wanted to think of gender as a divisive force, as the root of discrimination? Perhaps more relevant, who wanted to view oneself as a victim? Postfeminism was also a form of solipsism: If it’s not happening to me, it’s not happening at all. To those women succeeding in a man’s world, the problems wrought by sexism often seemed to belong to other women. But as our first serious female presidential candidate came under attack, there was a collective revelation: Even if we couldn’t see the proverbial glass ceiling from where we sat, it still existed—and it was not retractable….
It is perhaps cold comfort to say that if she loses the nomination, her candidacy leaves behind a legacy of reawakened feminism—the fourth wave, if you will. But this is in fact what is happening.
The past few months have been like an extended consciousness-raising session, to use a retro phrase that would have once made most of us cringe. We’ve parsed the gender politics of the campaign with other women in the office, at parties, over e-mail, and now we’re starting to parse the gender politics of our lives. This is, admittedly, depressing: How can we be confronting the same issues, all these years later? But it’s also exciting. It feels as if a window has been opened in a stuffy, long-sealed room. There is a thrill at the collective realization. Now the question is, what next?
In my more ambitious moments in writing on this site, I ponder whether romance and the online community of women who read and write it are a microcosm that mimics the larger state of women in the US, one that is representative of the political polarity and diversity of women in this country, only in much, much smaller numbers, which when making sweeping generalizations are easier to approach. The pressure to be nice, the forces that storm the tower to demand change, the number of women-owned and -operated small businesses in competition with established, largely male-run corporation conglomerates, the part where we’re a majority shareholder of the nation’s fiction dollars spent yet sometimes act like a minority afraid of criticism from within our own community, even if that criticism creates needed change, the idea that loyalty is more important than appropriate business conduct… yeah, all of that. So often the deeper thoughts I have on romance novels and the community here online link so neatly and seamlessly into thoughts of the State of Feminism and women in general that I have a hard time separating one from the other.
Political opinions aside, the idea that Clinton’s campaign has uncovered a latent and refueling effort on behalf of women is fascinating. But the best part, for me, was this comment, which stopped a lot of the pounding of “women haters!” drum set and robbed the trolls of their sticks. This comment, it’s like ice cream once you’ve had to eat something good for you that you hate the taste of. Reader SJL33 wrote:
Feminism does not suggest that men are evil or that they hate women. It only suggests, particularly in the 3rd wave (Michel Foucault), that femininity and masculinity are false concepts. They are nothing more than roles created by culture to define and divide, roles we have allowed and perpetuated endlessly.
I do not suggest that men act more like women or that women act more like men. I suggest that there is not any such thing. Just as there is no such thing as a Black person acting White or a White person acting Black. These roles do not exist!They only injure and shame, and I am tired of it.
As a Black woman in college, I see the racial and gender dynamics at work all around me. As a feminist at a time when it is very unpopular I only wish to build up all of the wonderful, beautiful men AND women around me, including myself. We all want the same things, regardless of race or gender. I hope that has not been completely forgotten.
Word. To. That. Person. Like. Merde and Mon Dieu (TM Nathalie Grey)
So – back to romance:
Sexism and RomanceLandia have a long dance-card full of history – are romance novels sexist? the opposite? both? neither? a duck with sheep’s clothing? a pocketful of kryptonite? – but conversely, racism and/in RomanceLandia is debated with shouting or whispers. Debates about romance novels written by or perhaps about black women and where they are shelved in comparison to white romance novels usually end up with much hollering online or use of capslock, or devolve into a complete lack of solution and much offense. The racial and sexual/gendered dynamics of the romance community online (OnRomCom? romcomon? Rom Cum-on? *snerk* sorry.) are vast and deep and twisty as all hell, and I don’t think I can do them justice in one entry.
But I’m curious about what you think. Are we an accurate microcosm, or am I navel gazing to previously uncharted heights of self-indulgence? Which is more of a present and pressing issue, out there or in here, sexism or racism? And has the Unfeasibly Tall Greek Billionaire met his match? Only the shadow knows.
Thanks, flip, for putting this out there.
I’ve had to walk away from a discussion where I was flat out told I was a bad woman for not calling myself a feminist. That statement still does not make sense to me, and really only cemented my (perhaps childish) decision to go with “people-ist” instead. Being told that I needed to label myself a certain way and hold certain views solely by virtue of my double-X is the most sexist experience I’ve ever had.
It’s not that I haven’t studied feminist political movements throughout history. It’s not that I haven’t written extensively on the portrayals of females in literature. It’s not that I haven’t studied matriarchial cultures. It’s not that I am unaware of the gender gap. It’s not that I haven’t educated myself and considered the arguments.
I feel you. I get what you’re saying. I am hip to your jive.
Disagreeing doesn’t make me a bad woman, nor an ignorant one.
I think that almost all oppression has, at its root, the way in which group identities tend to be created in opposition to that of an “Other” group. Usually that sort of identity can only be maintained through the creation of stereotypes and through ignoring in-group difference. For me, and I do call myself a feminist, the oppression of women is just one example of the sort of oppression that occurs as a result of this sort of thinking.
To take an example, the science says that yes, there are some differences, on average, between men and women, but in fact when you measure many of these differences (for example many cognitive abilitities of the sort discussed in Deborah Cameron’s book) the differences within each group (e.g. the range of traits/abilities/features among women) is in fact greater than the differences between men (taken as a group) and women (taken as a group). [See Shibley-Hyde’s 2005 meta-analysis for examples and discussion.]
I think similar emotional and intellectual processes of identity creation and consequent perception of difference underpin oppression on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, class, nationality etc.
I’m not saying that everyone is exactly the same, or has exactly the same needs, nor do I think we should throw off all labels and pretend that there aren’t differences between individuals, because there are. But we should try to break down the stereotypes and prejudices (some of which can be very subtle and deeply internalised) which make us oppress people that we perceive as “different.”
And it’s really discouraging when groups that have known oppression and that recognise how it works when it’s directed at them, don’t recognise the similar processes going on when they turn around and oppress another group in a similar way. I remember reading Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and she seemed to be unaware of the fact that she was writing about a particular group of women. So she suggested that “women” liberate themselves by going to university and turning over the housework to a cleaner. She didn’t seem to think that maybe the cleaner was being oppressed, and that perhaps the cleaner might like to liberate herself from housework and be able to follow her interests. And there have been left-wing men championing the rights of working men, but then ignoring the needs of working women. And there have been the white feminists who don’t want to think about how they might be acting in ways which oppress lesbians (for example, I’m thinking of some more of what Friedan wrote) or black women. Because even people who might not have privilege in one context (e.g. a white woman compared to a white man) might have privilege in another.
I don’t think it really works to single out one form of privilege or oppression and say it’s worse than another and so should be given priority. All the oppressions and forms of privilege are bound together, because of how they all seem to be based on simplistic ideas about identity which don’t just acknowledge real differences between individuals, but instead exaggerate the differences between entire groups.
I’ve done the same, when I was called a castrating bitch for stating that I am indeed a feminist – I was pushed into a rather nasty situation, and I pushed right back. It was that, or comply and become a willing victim.
Name-calling is what the angry and the tiny-minded of any stripe resort to when they’re losing the argument – that tends to be the fall-back tactic, to assault the self-image of the opponent.
I respect your rights to whatever appellations you choose for yourself. Please return that courtesy, and remember that we’re each of us individuals, and few take kindly to being stereotyped and lumped in with the more visible fringe elements.
R.: No one wants to be lumped in with the crazies, and I understand that. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’d call you names or think less of you for choosing the feminist label for yourself. I’m sorry if I gave that impression.
For the record, it’s not the radicals who jump on me for choosing a different label; it’s friends who tell me that I’m really a feminist inside and that calling it something different is divisive and giving the term to the radicals. We have had many deep, angry fights over it (the “bad woman” comment came from someone who was a good friend) and that’s probably why I come across as defensive. (Yes, that is, at its core, a “some of my best friends are feminists!” argument.)
I understand that feminism is a spectrum, as in any political movement. But just as my fiscal conservatism doesn’t make me a Republican, my deep belief in fundamental equality doesn’t make me a feminist. And just as I don’t assume any Republican I meet is a stereotypical gun-toting crazy “old boy” type, I don’t assume any feminist I meet is a stereotypical man-hating crazy “feminazi” type. Again, if I gave off an impression that I behave otherwise, I apologize for creating the misconception.
i *heart* laura v.
Thanks for everyone posting; I’ve really enjoyed the comments.
society87: yep, society is always changing…
miranda: yes! I’ve gotten this attitude from guys I’ve known. WTF?
A very salient point which people forget, especially when they are not struggling against multiple constraints like Angela is. I won’t belabor the point that Laura made so well, but I’d like to share my experience which, if anything, has strengthened my resistance to oppression of every kind while simultaneously removing me from the feminist ranks. At university I self-identified very strongly as a lesbian feminist of mixed race and had a very comfortable circle of friends of varying and similar persuasions. When I began dating a man, my neat little world fell completely apart. My “friends†thought that my relationship was somehow a betrayal, even though no one was willing or able to explain how. I lost every single one of them. (It might be relevant to note that a lot of them were the beauty-cult haters that are so off-putting to Nanny.) The really interesting thing was that the man I started seeing (now my husband) is black, and equally committed to his own struggles with inequality. Even though I saw our struggles as related, my non-friends did not.
I was pretty soured on the whole feminist label after this and I became increasingly convinced that his struggle was my struggle, especially when I started noticing that it wasn’t just my old friends that had a problem with our relationship. I “pass†as white (hate that stupid phrase) and, believe it or not, interracial couples still get a lot of hassle, even in California. Even in the Bay Area. It pisses me off like nothing else.
Our solution? Move to Canada. Seriously. We moved to Canada. I’ve lived here long enough to forget the staring and the slurs and the refusals of service. I hardly even think about it anymore unless I go home to visit the family, and then it is like we are our own walking freak show. Hubby and I have slowly eroded our individual preoccupations with our own marks of “other.†He is much more sensitive about sexism and I am less so. He is also the first to admit that Canadian women kick the asses of Canadian men in a way that you just don’t see in the States. In an, I-leave-your-ass- in-the-dust-and-never-think-twice-about-why-that-might-be-unusual, kind of way. There is a certain kind of woman in Canada that I have never met down south and she is forthright, confident and clever, and almost never, NEVER, self-identifies as a feminist; it’s like it never occurs to her that being kick-ass is removed from being feminine.
I am not a feminist any more than my husband is a black panther, but we are both perpetually ready to jump into any sort of discriminatory fray. We have also found that anytime there is friction between us due to race or gender, the best thing is to devolve the conversation to name-calling, then giggles. It reminds us how stupid it is to try and separate racism and sexism and how understanding the pain of others is the best way to know them.
And there it is: EMPATHY.
Tragic that so many tend to forget the how or why of empathising.
they24 – y’know, that thing’s just scary.
I don’t have a question about Clinton, but I do have a question about women’s romance novels: Why are they usually about a man who can get tons of women but then meets one woman and pursues her? Often the back cover says something about him having “Met His Match.” This seems universal and I’m wondering the sociological implications of this.
Why are they usually about a man who can get tons of women but then meets one woman and pursues her? Often the back cover says something about him having “Met His Match.†This seems universal and I’m wondering the sociological implications of this.
Yuzzy, you might be interested in reading a post I wrote called “The Rake’s Progress in which I did my best to work out why there are so many rakes (usually defined in romance as “a man who can get tons of women”) in romance and why they behave the way they do towards the heroine. They’re not “universal,” because there are other kinds of hero, but they are very common.