Rebecca Walker

I decided to make my post focus on Rebecca Walkers reading for class. I found this brief essay entitled, "Becoming the Third Wave" the most relatable document we have read thus far for class. Up to this point, a lot of the readings especially those of Elizabeth Cady Stanton spoke in great power to me, but they also always seemed somehow distant and less applicable to my life (specifically my life at Colgate). However, now that we are talking about the Third Wave of American Feminism, which as some define is our current wave of action, I feel much more connected to the words of these writers. Specifically those of Walker.

When she describes her experience on the train trying to ignore the sources of aggravation surrounding her, she buries her nose in her book. She is somehow used to hearing these types of derogatory remarks which fill our vernacular speech, our pop culture, and as Walker illustrates, even issues which extend all the way to the Supreme Court. I think that the sheer fact that the men on the train weren't even attempting to quiet their voices or keep their conversations out of earshot says a lot about just how commonplace such remarks are. To speak out loud, in a public place in such an offensive and misogynistic manner is an abomination. It really struck me to think about how man times i hear men talk in passing about their "ho" or their sexual escapades from the weekend before, etc. All these issues are spoken about as if the self-decency of the woman in question is non-existent.

One quote in particular really struck me, and I think it is a pervasive idea which is very present in life at Colgate. Walker writes: "I am sick of the way women are negated, violated, devalued, ignored. I am livid, unrelenting in my anger at those who invade my space, who wish to take away my rights, who refuse to hear my voice." But more importantly, I think Walker points out that while the men who treat women this way are repugnant, she also thinks of the the men and women whose "silence makes [them] complicit." Her mention of the complicit people who let these things go ignored is what really struck me about this passage.

I think it is important when studying feminism, and activism in general, that people do not just attack those who say and do bad things. But to me, and I believe to Walker as well, it is just at contemptible to see these atrocities being committed and saying or doing nothing. At Colgate I think many of us are complicit in our silence against misogynist actions and derogatory behavior. I think it is important for us, as a community, to speak out against the evils which we see. For this reason in particular, I found Walker's "Becoming the Third Wave," and her plea for women and men to join her movement, very poignant.

Economic Influences in Media and in Feminist Efforts

The excerpts by Walker and Baumgardner and Richards and the chapters from Douglas’s text led me to consider how the economy affected and still influences representations of women and the feminist movements.

As Douglas pointed out, “the country was in the middle of a recession with a serious spike in unemployment in 1990-1991; many kids, and their parents, were happy to pretend they were in 90210 for an hour” (Douglas, 2010, 29). The notion that media can be a vehicle to transport a disempowered individual into a world in which they possess the power they so desperately desire is significant, but becomes problematic when the constructions presented in the media negatively influence decision-making in the real world. Similarly, at the premiere of Melrose Place, “the country was in a recession, and college graduates wondered if they could get a job anywhere except Burger King” (Douglas 34). I found it intriguing to consider how the chain of events occurs and how the media capitalizes on poor economic situations which affect many to advance their own profits, only benefiting a select few. The economic conditions influence what is portrayed in the media and the audience that is targeted to engage with media, the media puts forth an image of the “ideal woman” which may present some positive qualities, like independence, strength, or intelligence, but these qualities are either paired with negative qualities or become threatening because of exaggeration. Accordingly, the media affects how women think about themselves and the world. Positive representations of women like those found in Sassy were short-lived and overshadowed by the distorted images and views found in most media sources.

Diverting from the media for a moment, Douglas presented a statistic: in 1994, “there were three times as many animal shelters in the country as there were shelters for battered women” (Douglas 64). I found this to be quite disturbing, but it seems unlikely to me that this statistic has changed significantly in 15 years. In my hometown (which has a significant homeless population and high crime rates), there is one men’s shelter, open only during the winter months, with 15 spots per night (the men sleep on the floor and 15 spots is extremely insufficient for the current demand), and staffed by volunteers from local churches. The rationale behind this program (as I understood from a short lecture at my church) is that men are reluctant to ask for help and women are more likely to ask someone they know for a bed to sleep on for the night; thus, a facility like this provides men with warmth during the dangerously cold months of the year, with minimal shame. However, there is no women’s shelter at all. Society holds an expectation for women that they should solve their own problems (which is reinforced by the media), but this is often unrealistic. I realize that shelters for battered women require trained staff and support services to address the needs of these women (social work/counseling background) and I appreciate what animal shelters provide, but where do our priorities lie? How can we move toward the link “between self and community” (Freedman ed., 2007, 425) that Baumgardner and Richards write about, the affinity that Walker feels toward the girl on the train, who she refers to as “my little sister” (Freedman ed. 400), and the elevation of the personal problems of women to a collective community concern? The Third Wave Manifesta has an economic suggestion: a “minimum wage that would bring a full-time worker with two children over the poverty line” (Freedman ed. 426). I don't know what conditions would allow a reform like this to be passed, but the feasibility of reforms that attempt to end unemployment or poverty is questionable under the current competitive capitalist system.

SAG Award Comments

I have not yet seen 'Black Swan', or else this would be perfect for my newsflash, but I was reading articles about the SAG awards and speeches when I ran across an interesting article. The article was about Natalie Portman's acceptance speech for her prominent role in the film and how she had to be bleeped out by TNT for discussing her "mature" actions. There was a segment of the speech attached and then comments below. This one comment seems especially intriguing as my first thought was how perfectly the context could be incorporated into our class discussions:

"These days in order to win any awards in the movie or tv industry, a girl has to do nudity and at least one sex scene. The raunchier the better, extra points for lesbianism. The younger the better.
Same goes for males who do gay love scenes. It's not good acting. It's not good writing. It's porn. But these days, that's Hollywood."

SOURCE: http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/the-prim-natalie-portman-gets-bleeped-during-her-sag-acceptance-speech--2211


Just some food for thought!

The Sassy Era

Douglas sure knows her stuff. In this week's reading she once again delves into the ever-so-popular topic of feminism in the media and breaks down three noteworthy topics; the stereotypical roles females play in popular television programs and how if their roles deviated from the norm, something else had to give, real-life females violent acts displayed on the nightly news and lastly unlikely characters females portrayed that yielded surprisingly high TV ratings.

In "Get the Girls", Douglas begins by reviewing the success of the two shows Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place. 90210 was a instant phenomena that attracted a predominantly female adolescent audience. Though it's main characters were a mix of both men and women, they were a far cry from what we would call eclectic. They were all white, upper middle class (with the exception of the two main characters who had just moved to the big city all the way from Minneapolis) teenagers with their own share of problems. The shows producers tackled many dilemmas which "normal" teenagers could relate to such as losing your virginity, eating disorders, shoplifting and parental problems, all contributing reasons for the show's ultimate success. These "teenage characters transported young women to a financially untroubled universe in which they could leave their lives hind and try on identities quite different from their own." (30) Despite being such a hit, 90210 sounds the message of bypasses feminism loud and clear. The main family's mom is a stay at home mom who loves cooking, cleaning and disciplining her children (we see later that this is the only mother figure who has any influence on her kids and thus it is accepted that this is the other form of a productive "mom" role). The teenagers in this show as well compliment their stereotypical molds quite nicely as well. The boys are "rational" and "anchored" while the girls are "impressionable" and "susceptible" to the peer pressures of adolescence. My favorite line from Douglas' chapter is, "the one academically ambitious girl Andrea (Gabrielle Carteris) is, yes, Jewish, wears glasses, and is poor. Oy gevalt." (30) We see the roles are a little reversed in the show Melrose Place as the main characters are strong, ambitious, power hungry women who take charge of their own lives. The thing I picked up on from the discussion of this show was that despite the unique roles females played in this show, the women could not have it all. If they were successful, beautiful and intelligent (what a combo for a women's role on television) they were lacking in the love department. If they were successful, intelligent and had a boyfriend you could bet they probably weren't that good looking. Unfortunately this paved the way for future shows to come and once again 'educated' its young female audience members by claiming that once again power reigned from beauty and drove home that once your at the top, something must go wrong since it was destined that women couldn't have it all.

The next chapter "Castration Anxiety", was a great section revolving around real world women in the news media. It highlights two women caught in acts of violence and how they became household names almost instantly. The first, a women named Lorena Bobbitt who cut off her husband's penis after her husband allegedly raped her. The second, a teenage girl named Amy Fisher who shot a women in the face after the women's husband, who turns out was sleeping with Fisher, broke up with the distraught teenager. As Douglas says, "had girls truly gone wild?" (56) These two incidences threatened the social order of male dominance and you better believe the media was there to capture every minute of it. The public had a field day with the portrayals of these two women highlighting their kick-ass, take no prisoners attitudes. Douglas notes, however, that the frenzy would have paled in comparison had the two not been so sexually appealing; it was after all their sexuality that had gained them such notoriety. Douglas then takes the opportunity to introduce Janet Reno, a member of Clinton's staff circa 1992. She was a very successful state prosecutor who was just north of 6 feet and avoided anything resembling make up. Although she was great at her job, the media (especially late night television) loved making fun of her lack of femininity, even questioning at times whether she was really a woman. In this capacity, again, the media is challenging that women (no matter what background) really can't have it all.

Perhaps television took a turn when in the late 1990s the new concept of "Warrior Women in Thongs" emerged. Shows like Xena and Buffy transcended the previous norm and displayed heroic women as the lead roles. These women "were accomplished and powerful, but always, always, slim and beautiful" (77) and most importantly, could kick any guy's butt. It was the first time women were showcased as not being the victim and instead were the ones rescuing others. It was a good turn for the media and, what do you know, the viewers loved it. It is interesting to point out though how Douglas finds that these women exist in other netherworld or parallel universes and that such a female character is not present in the every day lives of the show's easily amused audience members. Gender roles can't change that easily, our society wouldn't let them.

The Truth about Sojourner Truth?

I feel as though I have learned about Sojourner Truth through the course of my entire life, both as a nationally and locally significant figure (I grew up near her hometown in Ulster County, NY and subsequent area homes as she was sold to different slave owners; additionally, I visited the Women’s Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls in which she was featured). I do not recall reading any of her speeches though before now (the problem with the lack of primary source documents in NYS public school curricula is a discussion for another day) and it was incredible to read her words. Even as a creative writing student, I would have difficulty composing such an elegant yet forceful speech, but she does so with grace despite her illiteracy.

However, even though her points are, for the most part, powerful and assertive, I sensed a few instances in which she may have been yielding to higher powers. In the speech she delivered at the 1851 Ohio Women’s Rights Convention, she began by asking “May I say a few words?,” indicating deference toward the convention’s president and audience and a bit of hesitancy before she began. Though this gentler approach is beneficial for the reception of her ideas, a more commanding presence may have added to the power of her ideas. It is difficult to determine though because I did not hear the speech delivered and only a small bit of information can be drawn from the written account. Also, her comparison of a woman’s intellect to a pint and a man’s to a quart and her statement in 1867 that “white women are a great deal smarter, and know more than colored women, while colored women do not know scarcely anything” suggest that women, and specifically women of color, are inherently less intelligent than men, a message that seems to go against the efforts for equality of women of all races to men of all races. By saying “when we get our rights we shall not have to come to you for money,” she seems to imply that men should support women’s rights because of an incentive, rather than a deep-rooted belief that women should receive equal treatment and opportunities. In these regards, I question her motives but I probably would have acted similarly in her position, as my conviction tends to lie in my writing to a greater extent than in my speaking.

As both of the pieces by Truth in our book are speeches, I wanted to hear them spoken. So I searched on YouTube and found what some have called Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech, which contains elements of the May 1851 speech found in The Essential Feminist Reader. I came upon an interesting point: the speech from our book was first published by Marius Robinson; twelve years later, France Dana Barker Gage published the “Ain’t I a Woman?” version, in which this question is uttered four times and Truth’s speech has substantial Southern influences, even though Truth was born and raised in the North and most likely did not speak with a Southern dialect. Ironically, the “Ain’t I a Woman?” version became the more well-known standard, though it most likely lies further from the truth than the Robinson version in our text. I have included a YouTube video in which Alice Walker read the “Ain’t I a Woman?” version. The questions this information raises for me are: Why did the “Ain’t I a Woman” version become more popular and well-known; what enticed people to this version? Was Truth “becoming too white and intellectual” and needed to be “grounded” or placed within a stereotype of Southern black women’s speech, in accordance with what was mistakenly believed to be her Southern roots? I do not have the answers to these questions, but find them interesting to consider. Any ideas?

Stanton, Truth, and Dubois

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions"

The first line of Stanton's Declaration harkens to the opening clause of the America's Declaration of Independence from the British Empire. This is a very powerful way to open her discussion at the Seneca Falls Convention. Hoping to ascertain civil and political rights for women, Stanton begins her Declaration with a strong sense of pride and principle. This time however, it is not for the rights of a new nation but rather, for the rights of women. Stanton declares, "the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her" (EFR 58). After making such a claim, she immediately lists the facts of the grievances that woman had been suffering including leaving her without political representation, and forcing a different code of morals on women than on men. She then strategically lays out many resolutions to bring about the betterment of women. Such statements include that a "woman is man's equal," and that "it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise." It is also important to note that this is more than just a declaration of what Stanton believes the world should adhere to, but it is also a call to arms. He urges both women AND men to join the cause and help her to fight for the rights of women's equality.

Sojourner Truth: Two Speeches

At the core of her body of work, Sojourner Truth was using a very different perspective than the other women's rights leaders we have thus far read. She was born a slave in New York and strongly fought for the abolition of slavery and civil rights for African Americans. She also dedicated much of her efforts to the advancement of women. She thought that black men and women and white women should be granted the same rights as their white male counterparts. In her first speech, delivered in May of 1851, she asserts that women are just as strong and able as men are. I particularly like her metaphor of a pint and a quart for the size of a woman and a man's brain. She begs the question if a woman has a brain the size of a pint, who is to say that it is not full to the brim? She also uses biblical anecdotes to further her claims that women are no less than men. One of her messages which I thought was particularly powerful was when she stated: "If woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again" (EFR 64). This statement is particularly important because at the time the argument that Eve was made from Adam and thus she was secondary and the fact that it was Eve who was tempted and ate the apple were two major Biblical arguments which continuously were used to denigrate women.

Sixteen years later, Truth gave another riveting speech calling for equality of women. She begins by identifying the importance of her being black and the unique voice it gives her. She wants black women to be able to share their voice and fight not only for the promotion of their race, but also of their sex. She goes on to say, "There ought to be equal rights [for women] now more than ever, since colored people have got their freedom" (66). She insists that if women don't get the right to vote in particular, men will continue to subjugate them and things will be no better than before the era of civil rights advancements.

Ellen Dubois: "Feminism: Old Wave and New Wave"

Dubois begins her paper by offering her definition of the often used, and often misused, term "feminism." To her, feminism is a political concept which is comprised of three parts. The first is trying to explain how and why there is oppression of women. The second element is a vision of a society in which stereotypes based on sex are destroyed. The final part of her definition is the tenet that the presence of the oppression of women is a detriment to the advancement of society. I think by beginning with this definition, Dubois eloquently outlines the ways in which she thinks feminism needs to be engaged with society. She offers a brief survey of the history of feminism in the United States where she points out the first wave's connection to the abolitionist movement and the second wave's connection with the civil rights and peace movements. She also points out that each of the upsurges of feminist movements throughout the nation were started when women "who had attempted to function politically in the major reform movements of their days... had found that because they were women they would be unable to do very much at all." It is an interesting thought to see that these movements for early women's rights have a clear connection to other movements and it is when women are trying to help others and cannot that they again fight for their own rights. She delves deep into the history of the first wave of feminism and describes its often times tumultuous relationship with the abolitionist movement. One thing which shocked me when reading Dubois is what she said happened when British abolitionists were "offended by the thought of women functioning politically as the equals of men." For Mott and Stanton, this was a hard blow and it ultimately helped lead them to organize the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. She discusses the betrayal of the 14th Amendment which defined the rights of citizenship and extended it to all races, but it excluded any mention of sex. I loved the way Dubois ended her paper, so that is how i will draw my post to a close: "So, like the feminists of the 19th Century, we have gone the separatist route and formed a movement of our own. We work in women's liberation because we are not permitted to function fully in other movements for social chance and because, if we don't demand our own liberation, no one else will." Unfortunately, her hopes of having the second wave of feminism be our last was not the case. The feminist movement has continued to struggle, and still struggles to this day, to ensure total equality for women.

"Inequality is the natural condition." --- Fr. Paul Marx, Human Life International Symposium on Human Sexuality

A theme that appeared in all three of the readings was the idea which DuBois puts nicely, “if we don’t demand our own liberation, no one else will.” (3) The problem arises right from the start with this notion. Although it takes the motivation of women to get the ball rolling on women’s suffrage, “the speedy success of [the] cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women.” (Stanton, 62) Unfortunately, we hit a cross roads here because again DuBois notes that men just do not fully understand the deprivation women are suffering because they are not going through it. Thus, it cannot be expected that men will put up as much of a fight, if any, to try and win the fight. If you add all these factors together, you get a definite uphill battle.

It does make sense that “the oppression of women was not top priority for anyone but women themselves,” (DuBois, 3); after all, they were the ones being directly affected by it.  Take any current event for example. If you were to examine who fought harder to help Haiti overcome the disastrous earthquake, you would see it was those who had relatives in the country or were themselves a descendent from the nation. So it makes sense that women are the ones fighting the hardest to reach equality.  As I’m reading today’s articles, however, I’m getting a better sense about how hard that achievement is really going to be.

Being a math minor, equations are beginning to develop in my mind.  To achieve success, by the definition of women, we will need the majority of the population to agree to the terms of gender equality. Well easy, some might argue. Just take all the women plus some outlier men. Wrong. Not all women are dedicated to making this cause a reality because some aren’t affected by it, some don’t have the means to speak up and have the voice…you name it. But what about the men who have helped and held out a lending hand. Not enough. The only way this movement is going to work is if we unite as a gender and fight the battle head on, not taking ‘no’ as an answer and refusing to settle.  Sadly, Ellen, I think it is going to take more than two waves given, primarily, by the fact that we are in the 3rd (some would even argue the 4th).

"Women are out to fit the clothes, instead of vice-versa"

While I enjoyed all of the readings for this class, the one which struck me the most was Betty Friedan'sThe Feminine Mystique. First published in the early sixties, I greatly appreciated Friedan's commitment to looking back and using statistical analysis of birth and marriage rates, education percentages and the like, to delve into the mindset of a 1950s woman. The pressures of femininity and womanly behaviors pervaded all throughout society. The fact that pre-teens were encouraged to buy padded bras to entice boys or that cancer patients chose keeping their luscious blond locks rather than loose their hair to chemotherapy are clear indications that the mindset of society in the 50's had detrimental affects to the population of women living in the United States. While most of her argument stresses the role of a woman inside the home as a matron and mother and how women struggled to find their identity outside of the domestic realm, one quote about body image was particularly moving.

Early in the excerpt, Friedan quotes a shopper who stated: "Women are out to fit the clothes, instead of vice-versa." I am particularly struck by this quote because I think it is one of the more relatable issues to today. While Friedan's argument of domesticity was particularly target to the women of the 60's, I am inclined to think that today the struggle for a non-domestic identity is less of a shocking and socially prohibited issue. However, I think one of the most frightening detriments that women face in modern America are the issues surrounding body image. The idea of 10 year olds buying push-up or padded bras to "join the man-trap set" is terrible. Young girls today still struggle with obtaining the ideal body. The notion of striving for an "ideal body" in my opinion, is probably one of the most threatening issues for women. With the national average for women being a size 16, the images of models, actresses, business tycoons, female politicians, etc. seem to be far from that average. Women are idealizing the people they see in the media, which is far from a true representation of the female form.

In cultures which ones admired curvaceous womanly features, today the "ideal" image of a rail thin, DD breasts is something which young girls and women alike are willing to sacrifice their health (and maybe their sanity) for. I think women look towards men for validation of beauty. Instead of fulfilling internal goals or being true to one's natural aesthetic, women alter their habits, bodies, and minds to appeal to the male aesthetic.

The habit of dressing in certain clothes to trigger a sexual response from men, or fighting to loose a few extra pounds to compete with the posters of models hanging in boys rooms, getting a breast enhancement to grab the attention of the cutest guy or dying one's hair to resemble the sexy star from the movies are all ways in which women are willing to sacrifice their unique identity to conform to the "ideal" beauty. It is unfortunate but true that the male aesthetic dictates how this beauty is defined.

Friedan, de Beauvoir, Echols, Levy

Betty Friedan, Excerpt from The Feminine Mystique, 1963

In the excerpt from The Feminine Mystique, Friedan writes about the societal obligations white suburban middle-class women (mostly mothers) felt during the mid-20th century, including the need to marry, raise many children, maintain femininity at all times (often at the expense of health and well-being), engage in domestic life as a housewife, and delegate important decisions to men. She pays special attention to the allure society has attached to this way of life. Women during this time seem to experience an unidentifiable problem which includes feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy, and unworthiness with their quality of life. They are not necessarily overwhelmed, but instead unfulfilled. Some women she interviewed indicated feeling “as if I don’t exist” (Freedman ed., 2007, 275) and lacking an identity “except as a wife and mother” (277). Friedan uses the phrase “quiet desperation” (274) to describe the tone of voice of a single woman and also describes a collective of women as desperate on the following page. This may indicate that the problem has to reach a degree of severity before it can and will be addressed. The excerpt closes with her encouragement toward women, suggesting that each woman seeks “creative work of her own” (280) outside of the home and education so that she can use her ideas and skills in productive manners. Friedan addresses the issues these women face each day with a great degree of detail and universality, personalizing her argument to readers.


Simone de Beauvoir, Excerpt from The Second Sex, 1949

Simone de Beauvoir introduced a really interesting perspective to our class study of the history of feminism, that of a French individual and of a philosopher. She sets up dichotomous relationships between what is believed and what is reality related to the experience of women. For example, she writes “All agree in recognizing the fact that females exist in the human species; today as always they make up about one half of humanity. And yet we are told that femininity is in danger” (Freedman ed., 2007, 252). These statements lead readers to question and to be critical of what they hear and also suggest through irony that the former tenets of feminism may benefit from re-conception. By starting with the question “what is a woman?” (254), de Beauvoir notes the historical constructs of womanhood, including Aristotles’ view that the female possesses “a certain lack of qualities . . . [and] “a natural defectiveness” (254-255) and Michelet’s observation that “woman [is] the relative being” (255), ultimately coming to the conclusion that women belong to “the category of the Other” (255). She explains the distinction between naming people as the Other from the position of the One and being an Other yourself, and identifies the submissive and powerless nature of the position of the Other. de Beauvoir mentions that separation between women and the firm attachment between women and men, who are referred to as “her oppressors” (258), make gaining female power and privilege difficult. Similar themes of unfulfillment and dependancy resonate in this excerpt and the piece from The Feminine Mystique. de Beauvoir also transforms feminism and sexism, issues regarded by many as frivolous, into significant issues that can be examined with an intellectual lens.


Alice Echols, “The Re-Emergence of the Woman Question,” 1989

The chapter titled “The Re-Emergence of the Woman Question” from Alice Echols’ work Daring to be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975 offers an extensive history of the involvement of women in the civil rights and anti-war movements in organizations such as SNCC and SDS. Echols discusses how the women working within these movements advocated for others who were oppressed and were successful in organizing and working interpersonally with other women. However, they felt detached from the first-wave feminists and thus did not initially think of themselves as being oppressed, even though their positions within these supposedly empowering organizations furthered female oppression. An important moment seemed to be when “female activists began to question culturally received notions of femininity” as they encountered young and old black women in leadership roles (Echols, 1989, 27). However, these “positive role models,” as explained later by Cynthia Washington, were not indicative of the success of women in these organizations and SNCC specifically. As black women, Washington and her colleagues “were often treated as though they were somehow sexless” (32). The chapter also brings up the tensions between civil rights and anti-war movements and the second-wave feminist movement. The marginalization of women in SDS led them to apply the skills and knowledge they had acquired from their work to their own issues. This brought the personal to a public level, connecting their struggles within SDS as female employees and volunteers to a larger struggle encompassing women across America. Interestingly, the women’s rights movement of the mid-20th century resembled the black power movement to a greater extent than the civil rights movement, which was both empowering and detrimental to the second-wave movement, since the issues of women seemed to pale in comparison to those in the black power movement, who affirmed their status as “most oppressed” (49). The historical account of the factors leading up to the development of the second-wave feminist movement were presented objectively in this text with a curiosity to understand why certain aspects of the movement were present and where they may have originated from.


Ariel Levy, “The Future that Never Happened,” 2006

Levy writes about radical women during the 1970s who wanted “to be neither oppressor nor oppressed . . . [and] really wanted [] a total transfiguration of society-politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics” (Levy, 2006, 48). Previously, women like Friedan had chosen specific goals to work toward, but the goals adopted by these women were more undefined and extreme, like Susan Brownmiller’s goal to “overthrow [] the patriarchy” (50). Much legislation was passed, court decisions were made, and organizations were formed to benefit women during the 1960s and 1970s, considered successes by both the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution (53-54). The chapter examines how, ultimately, the success of Roe v. Wade dissipated and these two movements would separate and the women’s movement would suffer from internal division. The sexual revolution, though experiencing victories for women in birth control and abortion rights, seemed to focus on men and a double standard developed in which women who were sexually promiscuous were “filthy” (58) whereas men were “experienced” and glorified in a sense. Also, the movement did not promote women’s capacity for intelligence. Within the women’s movement, there were different ideas about what types of sex were acceptable. One faction, at times, seemed to be against sex (anti-porn feminists). The other promoted the freedom to look at or appear in pornography (62-63) and be connected with one’s body (sex-positive feminist), which created division within the movement. CAKE, a recently developed group, represents what the founders describe as the current meeting point between “sexual equality and feminism” (70) and what Levy describes as “confusion” resulting from unresolved conflict between the movements (74). In some ways, groups like CAKE “demean[] women” just as society does (76), which does not benefit the empowerment of women, and this group can a limited scope of the possible manifestations of female sexuality. Levy points out that what used to be considered revolutionary in the women’s movement “now seem self-evident” (85) and the previously existing radicalism doesn’t exist currently except in a few forms which Levy categorizes as somewhat distorted. The chapter presents data and quotes that contributed to both the women’s liberation and sexual revolution movements and analyzes these sources, identifying where these movements have “gone wrong” for women and, in some cases, where Levy felt the movement lost sight of what past feminists were fighting for.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

This week, I really enjoyed reading the two online articles. For my post, I will focus on Echols' article. An important point that stood out to me while she was discussing the height of "the Movement" and juxtaposing both sexual and racial tensions at the time was the issue of black men sleeping with white women. All facets of this phenomena were interesting to consider; that is, the black male's perspective, the white female's perspective and last, but not least, the black female's perspective.

Echols claims that black men slept, or rather "used white women in an effort to reclaim their manhood." (30) I think what is inferred here is that sleeping with a white woman was more of an accomplishment that sleeping with another black woman because at the time they were recognized still as a higher class with dare I say it, more power. If a black man, therefore, were to sleep with lots of white women, which seemed to be happening quite often, then they would establish a feeling of conquest. Because it gave these men so much confidence, it become a mindless act to sleep with all these white women and got to a point where the men were just sleeping with the girls to, as Echols puts it, add another notch to his gun. Unfortunately, this is all to similar is today's world, with young men (of any race) trying to sleep with as many women as possible to feel successful and sometimes powerful. Have we pinpointed the initial cause of such a destructive practice that yet again sets women out to be simply objects? I think we perhaps have identified one piece in a very large puzzle.

On the other extreme, white women, Echols argues, were sleeping with these black men to "prove their liberalism or to 'expiate their guilt'." (30) This reasoning isn't much better. Echols is saying that these women were merely sleeping with the black men and using their bodies as an alternative to voicing their opinions about women's liberation. That is, rather than protesting or writing articles or hosting rallies, there were sleeping their way through cities to get their point across; that women were on the same playing field as men. Another reasoning for the promiscuity of females was the catch 22 idea that if a white woman rejected a black man's advances, she could be potentially scrutinized for racism, but if she did accept and slept with the man, they she could be labeled as a slut. This is a very interesting concept that Echols writes about that I think transcends into Colgate's "hook-up culture". The catch 22 at Colgate, albeit somewhat modified has the same resounding negative impact on the female population. If a girl rejects the sexual advances of a guy on campus, the guy will move on to another girl who will "give it up" and the former girl will be left alone. However, if a girl accepts the advances, she will similarly be labeled "loose." (30) (Can't a girl catch a break!)

The black female at this time were left to play the role of bystander. They were almost like the peanut gallery watching and forming opinions about the sexual encounters between these black men and white women. These women, on the one hand, had the upper hand because they could see how these white women were being used. The other extreme, then, is that they do not have sex with anyone because the black men are satisfied with all their white female conquests. Sadly, there was no compromise.

Who Does Enlightened Sexism Affect?

I really enjoyed reading Douglas’s often sarcastic and ironic writing. Her introduction contained a developed rant carefully crafted to appeal to her audience (most likely consisting of liberal feminists and would-be feminists who wouldn’t mind the bashing of past Republican presidents and mainstream popular culture), used intellectual language (including a few words I had to look up: verboten, kvetched, screed, ersatz, and cabal) and included media influences that white middle and upper class women encounter frequently.

However, she seems to suggest that “enlightened sexism” only affects rich white women and, aside from a few statistics found on page twenty comparing the wages of white, African American, and Latina women (are there only three ethnicities in this country/world?), largely neglects to convey the experience of ethnic minorities, poor women, women who were once men, or individuals who question their own gender (The list of neglected populations could go on and on.). Even though women outnumber men in population, most women do not possess the culture of power or may possess power that is misdirected by the media toward “less significant” aspirations, including the promotion of physical and sexual power rather than political and economic power. Therefore, the status of being a women incorporates a sort of “minority” quality. Douglas is concerned with the influence of enlightened sexism on her own daughter, but what about girls whose parents don’t recognize the dangers of “buying into” the media’s message about how women should look and act and the resulting decline in power for women? Though some media may have a target audience of upper-class white women and girls, media affects individuals from all backgrounds, sometimes in widely differing regards.

Though what Douglas has experienced personally is the life of an upper-class white women, our class discussion on Tuesday affirmed that feminism can (and, I believe, should) embody stepping outside of one’s own experience and seeking to learn about and include the experiences of others, operating as a collective movement to affirm the worth of women and others who are oppressed. Douglas seems to stay within the confines of her own gender, ethnicity, and class. I am left to wonder: Are the rich white women and their children the only victims of the force labeled “enlightened sexism?” And if not, how can the experiences of others be conveyed?

But this may be an unnecessarily harsh critique. As the adage “Don’t judge a book by its cover” expresses, first impressions are not necessarily accurate. If a book’s introduction contained everything written within its chapters, the chapters would have no purpose. I still need to give the rest of the book a chance before I write it off as narrowly-focused and even antifeminist in some of its tendencies.

"Fantasies of Power"

Susan Douglas' wonderful reflection and analysis of the media's representation of women struck me as a powerfully enlightening argument. Douglas' examples led me to question my favorite go-to shows: the obvious problems with the girls on MTV's Jersey Shore, America's Next Top Model, etc. But I thought that my favorite network, the Food Network, couldn't possibly be doing the same.

Unfortunately, after thinking a little harder about some of my favorite Food Network programs, I found a trend which could have easily found its way into Douglas' argument. After reading the introduction to "Enlightened Sexism" I noticed that there are generally two types of shows on the Food Network: the first, a male chef throwing meat on the grill and using bold flavors which go great with a tall glass of beer, and the second: a doting female who uses delicate, refined flavors cooking in-home meals ready to serve to the family. It was very interesting to look a little further into this issue: not only were the types of food women and men cooking different, but the women chef's sets were also representative of this problem. While Giada DeLaurentis, Ina Garten, Rachel Ray, and Paula Deen all cook on sets which look straight out of a country-house kitchen, Bobby Flay, Guy Fieri, and Michael Symon all cook in restaraunt-style or outdoor grill settings. This is a clear commentary that women are to cook in the home for her family, while the boys are able to cook professionally and in a masculine, industrial environment.

Another element which struck me while examining some of my favorite shows is how often the women, particularly Ina Garten and Giada DeLaurentis, cook food specifically to dote on their husbands who anxiously await their food to be placed in front of them. For the women's shows who dont actually pick their husband's favorites to cook on their show often times will still talk about good dished or how to alter flavors which appeal to their husbands. "Game-day" snacks for a husband and his buddies are often featured on Rachel Ray's program, which highlight her domestic role to cater to her husband and his friends.

While there are infinitely more examples to expose, the above were some of the most interesting to me. Douglas' has opened my eyes to the various ways in which women can be objectified on TV. I am excited to continued reading to learn more about the ways modern sexism had become rampant and often times subconscious.

Enlightened Sexism

I think this assigned reading was a fabulous way for our class to dive into the world of feminism, sexism, and all other categories that may unfold. Susan Douglas does an excellent job of analyzing how a highly controversial topic relates not only with her life, but how it has effected our world as a whole. She takes us on a path that engages a "beginning, middle and end" theme to help dissect feminism for the modern reader. Through this introduction, Douglas establishes her ground as a feminist mom who identifies the uphill battle she faces in her quest to fight for equal rights of women from all generations.

Douglas begins by mentioning the 90's pop band 'Spice Girls' and the influence they have had on her daughter's generation. At the height of their career, the Spice Girls promoted the successful idea of girl power. This concept, the group claimed, was a new positive phrase they had adopted in favor of the previously "dirty" word, feminism. The Spice Girls' influence of female empowerment carried on for years following the girl band's break up. For example, as Douglas points out, within the past couple of years we have seen females run for president and vice president. In film and television we have also seen females in the roles of CEO's, attorneys, surgeons, and even police chiefs. So have the feminists of the world done their jobs? Have women finally become "equal" in the sense that we are now running with the same packs of wolves as the men?

Sommer's, another author Douglas references, argues that we have in fact gone too far. The so-called success of feminism, Sommer's claims, is damaging and even harming the young men of the world. Because all these women are now becoming well-educated and are in the over-achieving mindset, young boys are being neglected and even prejudged in the classroom. As we can see from real world examples, however, this is not the case. Women still make less than men do and do not hold nearly as many coveted high profile positions.

The media has done an excellent job at alluding that women have reached equality, with shows like Sex and the City and magazines like Cosmo; "media allusion is that equality for girls is an accomplished fact when it isn't" (4). Douglas puts it nicely when she says that if the media were a mirror, they would be the fun-house mirrors, the one's that distort everything. This, in my opinion, is an understatement if thought about clearly. Enlightened Sexism demonstrates how the media does a good job at deceiving its audience by exaggerating certain stories, people and values while minimizing others. Did you ever step back and think about how many shows you watch where the main characters are beautiful and rich? I would say most of them. It was not until recently that a small amount of reality shows started to incorporate a few series that highlighted the underdogs of society, the poor and less fortunate looking people.

As a result of the media highlighting such lifestyles, the girl power generation, as Douglas puts it, is sold the idea that power and success come from shopping, being hot, having the right material goods and worst of all by being vindictive towards other girls. Taking a step back and seeing what the media has to this day accomplished, with cult classics such as Mean Girls, and how they have influenced out generation is shocking. It makes me think they we need to go back to the days of the Spice Girls and try to generate that positive approach to equilibrium. Here's hoping that history repeats itself.

While thinking about this crossroads with some of my friends, I started thinking about what influence the Spice Girls had on me. Initially, all I could remember was that I was in LOVE with them and saved my money to buy Spice World the day it came out on VHS. Looking back with a more mature frame of mind I realized that I was probably influenced a great deal by the five members of the group and by what they represented. I have been lucky enough to grow up in a generation modern enough to not question when women succeed at the work place and when they voice their opinions in public. I have, however, also been a part of the generation who is the prime subject for mass media targeting. I hope that I have not suffered negatively because of the later, but if I have I hope that this class will do a good job at allowing me to think clearly as I move forward in future.