Blogs and Stories
How Feminism Became the F-Word
)
The current women's rights movement, embodied by the planned "special Inaugural edition" cover of Ms. magazine, is hardly recognizable to those who are trying to advance the discourse on gender.
Who is looking out for the women of this country? Well, I will tell you who is not: Ms. magazine.
Ms. was co-founded by Gloria Steinem and Letty Cottin Pogrebin in 1971. The first cover of Ms., emblematic of the women’s movement of the time, was brave and bold. A giant figure of Wonder Woman strides across the landscape, while the caption proclaims, “Wonder Woman for President.” No small irony that, four decades later, when a real live wonder woman ran a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton was mysteriously absent from the cover of Ms. Nor did this real live wonder woman have the full support and endorsement of many of the women’s groups that had sprung from the second wave of the women’s rights movement.
It is time that we take back the term "feminism" and restore its dignity and honor. It is time that we, our daughters, and granddaughters discover our inner Wonder Woman.
Our story starts in 1961, when a true heroine, Eleanor Roosevelt, chaired the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women.The 1960s and 1970s are full of heroines of all political stripes making groundbreaking strides for women. Shirley Chisholm, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Robin Morgan fought for political representation, maternity leave, equal pay, affirmative action, and reproductive rights. Somewhat less well known to modern day women are heroines like Margaret Chase Smith, who in 1964 became the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for the US presidency, and Mary Dent Crisp, co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee in 1977, who was driven from the post in 1980 after publicly assailing the RNC for its opposition to abortion rights and the Equal Pay Amendment. (Strange irony that several decades later the Democratic Party would almost deny a candidate who received 18 million votes a chance to have her name put into nomination, and in that same year, the party that has yet to choose a female chairperson would select a man for head of the Democratic National Committee.)
The work of the second wave of the women’s rights movement is central to many of the liberties that women of today take for granted. But after the battles of the 1960s and 1970s had been waged and won, something strange happened to the movement for women, and with it, the term “feminism.” A backlash set in, and the women’s movement retreated from the streets to the committee rooms. National women’s organizations became increasingly tied to the Democratic Party and to pro-choice politics. A period of decline in interest in and membership of national women’s organizations ensued. But this is hardly the fault of the women and like-minded men of this country. You see, most of them were no longer “allowed” to be part of the movement. The movement had devolved and morphed into a clique instead. And this clique only allowed members with certain rites of entry: liberal Democratic women who were pro-choice.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
"[T]he fact that women still earn 78 percent of what men do" is not, in fact, a fact. It is silliness like that which discredits feminism.
Feminism used to be the radical notion that women are people. Now it's the bizarre notion that somehow men aren't. Thus a person with a penis has no business being on the cover of Ms. Thus a man shouldn't be selected on the merits to run the DNC, at least until a few women have had the job for awhile. Thus NOW shouldn't endorse a man over a woman, regardless of the substance of their views.
The threat to feminism is that as conditions have vastly improved for women in the workplace and society over the past 40 years, some women will stop feeling like eternal victims. Thus rendering most of the organizing principles of mainstream feminism obsolete.
Well said, Rocket88. I think Amy Siskind has missed the point here, or at least, she has missed why I (and all of my educated, female, twenty-something friends) no longer wish to be called "feminists".
It is precisely because of older women who expect us to automatically support any female candidate for office (regardless of her shortcomings, or the qualities of her male opponents) and who find the idea of a man on the cover of Ms. Magazine inherently offensive, despite claiming to support a "big tent movement that invites women and like-minded men of all political parties and views on reproductive rights".
The trouble with the formal "movement" is that its proponents seem not to believe that change is actually possible, or at least, that change can only be forced. Those of us who grew up in the 90s know that, in fact, there are many, many enlightened men out there, who are ready to go to bat on women's issues as on anything else. Some of them are even worth voting for -- or seeing on the cover of a magazine.
Perhaps when women can be ordinary human beings, rather than superhuman, feminism might regain some traction. I came of age during the 70s and received many grandiose messages from older feminists, most of whom, if they were "successful" were unmarried and childless.
Most women are married with children. The feminist movement never really understood that. Most women care more about their children than they do about a career. The feminist movement never really understood that. When the feminist movement can find a way to make motherhood a paid career, then women will have real equality.
Bravo -- what Amy says about exclusion and the clique is dead-on correct. It's about time someone said it! These issues do affect all women, no matter their politics A true feminist should stand up for the principle of equality, whether or not she agrees with everything the woman being treated unfairly believes -- rather like Voltaire, no?
The Feminists I have run into lately are appalled that I accepted a ring from my husband, changed my name, and stay home with my child (never mind that I'm a disabled veteran and don't have a choice - my volunteer work isn't enough - nor is the fact that I have my own money). The fact that there aren't many moderate feminists (that I can find) drives many women who consider themselves strong, feminist women away from organized groups.
Instead of applauding the fact that I am raising my son in a rather gender neutral way and that I control the money, investments, etc. in the home they are offended that I wear a wedding ring?!?! Maybe if they worried about things like child care, helping poor women find equality, single moms, and finding ways for stay at home moms to empower themselves they are concerned that I wear a ring and changed my name? Until my generation is in charge I don't think I'll be joining the movement any time soon.
I think it's important to note that what the T-shirt says is "This is What a Feminist Looks Like"--FeminisT, not Feminism. In other words, it's not saying that feminism looks like a man striking a superman pose. It's saying that the man who is about to become our President, Barack Obama, is a feminist, which goes right along with what you want--a more inclusive feminism, in which one doesn't have to be a liberal Democratic pro-choice WOMAN in order to be accepted as a "real" feminist. Also, I think it's just as sexist to suggest that anyone who didn't support Hillary isn't a "real" feminist--you're again instituting an exclusive political litmus-test with that implication. And is it really a giant leap forward for feminism if the wife of an ex-President gets elected? I mean, down here in Alabama we elected Lurleen B. Wallace (wife of George Wallace) governor quite a few years ago, but nobody thinks of that as a great leap forward for women.
Bravo! Fabulous piece, Amy Siskand.
Sarah Palin hit on something interesting when she talked about classism and the difference between how she was portrayed versus Caroline Kennedy. She has a point. The feminist movement doesn't just require you to be a Dem and pro-choice, there's also an elitist requirement for the club. You hear this from women who have stayed home to raise children, or women who have worked their way up the political ladder. Caroline Kennedy, even Obama, are welcomed into the feminist club with no actual feminist credentials. People like Palin, who is the only one of the bunch that actually has the courage to call herself a feminist, is completely excluded. Being working class, whether in the home or not, has become an obstacle that also blocks you from the feminist clique.
I think you give the "women's rights groups" too much responsibility. Yes, they have chosen to make reproductive freedom one of their biggest issues, but I believe this is more out of strategy and limited resources. And more importantly I don't see anything wrong with it.
Women's issues are broad and complex and we need many organizations to work on all of the issues. I read the goals from your organization "The New Agenda" and strongly believe in all of them and feel it is important work for your organization to do-especially in the universal way I saw your organization approaching these issues. I am in my late 20s and have many friends (and was once one) who don't want to call themselves a feminist because they aren't pro-choice. I don't like the way this has become a divisive issue.
But, now, I believe a woman's right to choose is the base of her right to be equal in this society. And this is why, I believe, the women's groups have chosen to make this issue central. One could argue that this may be bad strategy and maybe it is.
The woman's movement is broad and multi-faceted. It seems to me that we keep tripping over ourselves which prohibits us from moving forward. Will it take an umbrella organization that will bring us together for strength? (It saddens me that I have little hope that this will happen) Or do we need to stop complaining about each other and just work?
Thank you for the work your organization is doing...It is important to me and women everywhere.
PUMA ... and here I was thinking they were extinct ...
Seriously ... Feminism does not have to mean being a Female ...
That IS sexist ...
Some civil rights movements became less about progress that most people could comprehend and get behind (the vote, equal treatment) and sounded more like a shrill anti-male, anti-white resentment.
When others have been labeled an active enemy change is hard to create. It takes common ground to get people to work together, unless they're forced otherwise to by law. And then resentment grows.
It's hard to manage a resentful tone when you're angry about the times you've been shoved aside, but it's essential to find common ground to get others to work willingly with you.
I don't think men or whites for instance generally believe they have something more than others and it breeds resentment to hear they're somehow holding others back. They're just doing what they need to do to survive and win too and see the playing field as equal and just less well played by others -- is that their fault? I hear this at work all the time where the ratio of men to women is probably greater than 3:1.
And yes, some actively don't want someone like you in their club and it really is an "-ism". But this can get very subtle. Basically we're tribal creatures.
Managers hire the people that make them feel comfortable, that's a natural tendency of anyone. If you don't have the same values, believe in the same rules, act in similar ways your qualifications are already less important.
Well, you sound very reasonable, but, uh, aren't you the silly extremist feminist who blogged about Hilary being "groped" when it was just a drunken joke with a cardboard cut-out?
You know - when you harped on how OMG two prior Prez's had 2.3 women in high positions compared to Obama's 2.0? Where you just had to see more vagina-toting Humans up there in the ranks, sorta like the GOP geniuses who considered Palin their answer to representation for women?
You belie yourself, for today's blog invites "like-minded men" into this reformed 4th wave, yet, in the aforementioned prior blog, you just gotta see more vaginas up there in Presidential appointments, or else Obama's a sexist?
I agree with stephschiff, above, that the feminist focus on issues is myopic and picayune.
I grew up in the 70's and I never thought "feminism" was supposed to be about career, abortion rights.
It was supposed to be about women rights in general. A choice, not a comdenation of a old role that no longer could exist.
Any one who does not understand what she is talking about, should look through history about the real Feminism, and why it came to be.
I felt at loss with it too, but not because I did not know what it was, but because so many people were using it for negative purposes. "Many" were use it and profess that it meant something different then it was actually intended.
Just like the word "Liberals" is used now.
Thank you Amy. Excellent article. And thank you Tina Brown for making sure The Daily Beast covers feminist issues. I am appalled still at the amount of sexism in the 2009 campaign. It was disgusting. I hated it when I watched Michelle Obama say on the campaign trail (referring to Hillary) "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." That appalled me. There was also the "bros before hos" cracks and comments. This type of behaviour was rampant during the campaign and I hope it woke women up to the fact that feminism has taken a huge beating. The fact that younger women seem to think the battle has been won is scary. I think Scarlett Johanson and all the other young Hollywood beautiful women went out to support Obama largely because it was considered "cool" to do so. I saw that time and time again - it was COOL to support Obama and it was not cool to support "old" Hillary Clinton. A woman who got to the top of her game through - yes - partly because of where her husband got to but more important because of her own qualifications and hard work. She is by no means perfect and I disagree with her supporting the war in Iraq but Obama is not perfect either and the media did give him a free pass.
Women have to run things to get changes made. Otherwise it's the old "oh yes, just because we say men, we really mean women AND men. Right. Obama's cabinet has very few women in cabinet posts. What kind of feminist is he? One that calls women "sweetie" in the off guarded moments.
Feminism is exclusionist, and downright sexist, an Us-Versus-Them mentality. Believing that women, or blacks or gays for that matter, should be given government posts just because they're women, blacks or gays is tokenism. People are people, no matter what gender, color, or sexual orientation they are, and they should be judged, and elected to office or hired for jobs, on their own individual merits, as Obama was. Feminism should not be emphasizing the differences among people, but rather the similarities.
Feminism isn't always about promoting women just because they are women. for people who are raised in a more open minded family, it may look that way because there may already seem to be a level playing field in a place like New York opposed to rural Kansas. Sexism isn't always apparent in more liberal areas of the country. I was raised in a more conservative area....and Feminism is about the concept of men not bearing their teeth at the television every time they see Hillary Clinton, unable to answer why exactly they hate her when questioned about it. It's also about not assuming women live their lives to raise plan meals and raise children, even after they come home from working 8-10 hour days just the same as their male counterparts. Again, in a place like NY it may be a tiresome subject...but this country still has a long way to go as a whole.
A few points:
The old canard about women being paid less than equally qualified and experienced men has been disproven again and again. You immediately lose credibility by bringing it up.
Stop talking about "reproductive rights" when you mean the right to stop reproduction by killing an unborn child. If you believe that's ok then defend it but don't use dishonest euphemisms.
Being a mother and housewife is by no means an unpaid job.
She is basically paid the same as her husband, living in the same home, eating the same food, enjoying the same luxuries or enduring the same modest lifestyle, sharing his pension and social security payments, and in all probability outliving him by seven years.
Finally, young women who are interested in love and marriage know that most men are too smart to marry a woman who calls herself a feminist. It is truly a recipe for a miserable life.
Current so-called feminism seems to have morphed into a singular (Pro-Choice) cause. When womanizing (Republican) Bob Packwood was in the news feminists were screaming sexism, and when (Democrat) Billl Clinton was playing grab ass with women other than Hillary the feminists seemed awfully quiet. Is the feminist movement run by a group of phonies?
Most of the young women I have encountered resent feminism for its rejection of feminine beauty, and use of sex and their own attractiveness as a way to get ahead. Nothing was more derided than women who "slept around to get ahead". Feminism has a long way to go until it addresses the issue that an awful lot of female success stories still have an awful lot to do with the fact that powerful mentors or husbands whose primary goal in promoting young females is to gain their approval or even to score, because they find these females attractive. Feminism told women that the single most powerful arsenal in their struggle to get ahead and get noticed for their intellect, physical attraction, was to be laid down and not used; scorned even. To women brought up in a culture where sex is a leisure time pursuit, why shouldn't they look at a casual romp with an influential man much differently than golf or tennis as a way to connect and network?
The near-demise of feminism is about two issues--the first is cheap and free labor. It is undeniably true that heterosexual women are last hired, first fired, and worst paid, so the ruling classes can rake off female wages into their own stock funds and benefits packages. At the same time, we still are expected to provide free labor at home, both for the nuclear family and for aging parents. Keeping women down is a huge and lucrative racket for most men and many women as well.
Secondary opponent to feminism is a staple of the last hundred years--alcohol and illegal drug lobbyists, both open and covert, who exist in complicity with non-supporting fathers to keep their profits high, and who understand the negative effects of their products on the unborn and on women's more sensitive physiologies.
Abortion benefits non-supportive fathers, so it is legal. Free sexuality benefits these, coercive bosses of both sexes, and the sex industry. Fair pay, equal employment, and enforcement of child support laws are items men don't want, and economic oppression of women and children are continued profit-makers for the bailout set, who can fund poor families with taxation of the classes just above them and continue handing out tax breaks to the oppressor businesses.
Bring on the fourth wave! I am ready to fight.
Nice article, but I'm not sure that feminism can be rescued from the feminists. With most causes, it seems, inclusivity is a key element of progressivism; as pointed out here, feminism has become a surefire means of excluding people. Just watch what happens if a man tries to discuss feminism with a self-appointed feminist at a dinner party. On second thought, don't watch: get in there and rescue the poor blighter.
But there's more at stake than smugness: feminism is an industry with a stake in exclusivity. It occupies a protected space in academia, public broadcasting and political action; more broadly, many people who have benefitted from the feminist agenda - particularly privileged white women - have been less than sisterly towards their juniors. Some women promote other women in the office; mainly, they seem to punish one another, mercilessly. Feminism thus becomes a way of speaking progressively (...as the first woman to peel an orange with a baseball glove on...), while acting regressively (...but you just didn't confront the same obstacles I did...), or even worse, just not giving a damn.
Half the reason feminism is talking itself into irrelevance is a lot of key feminist issues are no-go as far as wealthy white women are concerned, because they threaten class privilege: whether it is right to give spouses jobs to shut them up when hiring their partner (husband or wife - the point is what this does to meritocracy), whether it is right to pay (immigrant) au pairs and others so little, whether regimes demanding significant amounts of free labour (...when so many young women are willing to pay to get into publishing, design, journalism, NGOs...), or insecure part-time labour are reasonable... for further examples of total hypocritical disdain for the plight of others, refer to any episode of Sex and the City. Maybe that's why Alice Walker calls herself a 'womanist.'
It is reassuring in the extreme to find someone who sees so clearly ; understands the dynamics involved and articulates the issues so very well . I made a graphic parody of the cover of MS Magazine which you can use if you wish to illusrate the difference between the cover of Ms Mag and the truth .
http://img.photobucket.com/alb.....gynist.jpg
Thus far this champion has appointed 5 women to his cabinet of 21 , which is truly a sad beginning, considering there are so many qualified women for these posts .
I can remember when MS magazine first came out , and I was surprised and pleased my "old fashioned" mom was reading it . But it occurs to me now we no longer need an artifical "title" to designate our social status, so in that sense we no longer need MS magazine .I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am to see the current cover . I thought it was a hoax at first as well .
We especially do not need them ; when they have fallen prey to the mythical need to be rescued by a " comicbook figure supermale" who has done anything but fulfill a truly feminist agenda with his administrative chioces. MS magazine has just become MS Cinderella magazine waiting for their Prince .
Thank you for your devotion to the cause !!!
I don't know if any of the people leaving comments actually read the article or looked at the website? Many of you are arguing against "old feminism" and that is exactly what this article is about. I think it's a fantastic that some feminists like Siskind are trying to get back on track. It was always supposed to be about ALL women of ALL political parties and walks of life coming together and helping make women's opportunities and lives better. It sounds like that is what she wants to do.
"Second wave feminism failed. Welcome to the fourth wave!"
Didn't we skip something here? What happened to the third wave?
As a young feminist, I can tell you: it's alive and well and being put into action around the world every day. It says that feminism isn't a clique you can join or be excluded from. It's something you DO, in the way you live you life.
We don't need another wave. We need all the folks out there who understand that discrimination against women still exists, who were upset about the way Clinton or Palin were portrayed by the media, who think equal pay and domestic violence are issues that Washington needs to address, to drop the "I'm not a feminist, but..." qualifiers and accept it:
You're a feminist. Deal with it. And get out there and do something about it, to make the world a better place for yourself and your daughters.
OMG, if I hear one more person rant about how feminism is just for white ladies I'm going to lose my lunch. Feminism has always been the most diverse and inclusive movement in American history. The problem is that feminism today is more about catering to men, in order to gain approval from men, and is losing its credibility in the process. This is what Siskind is trying to point out. Why do so many mock the feminist movement? Because it fails to include Republican women (Siskind's organization is non-partisan), it places the needs of everyone else before women's needs more often than not (and in carefully coded language), and resembles a silly high school circle of celebrity cliques rather than a serious movement concerned with handling the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
I can't believe they would put Obama on the cover, not because he is a man, but he isn't even in office yet so what could he possibly have done to deserve this kind of adulation? It makes me think the owners of this magazine must have something they want from him or something to gain. It just makes no sense.
What about EITHER Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton? They both made great steps forward for women this year! I would even put McCain on the cover before Obama for picking Palin as VP instead of a tired safe choice like Biden. Just what exactly has Obama done for women? Not just said he will do maybe someday, but what has he actually done to deserve this honor?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.