Teaching '70s Feminism

PAGE 2 OF 4

Greetings, all!

I would like to note the two related, intertwined, interdependent but
(somewhat) separately distinguishable threads here:  (a) teaching about '70s
feminism, and (b) waves of feminism within the U.S, and I feel compelled to
point out the importance of qualifying that these particular
conceptualizations -- and our discussion of them -- are specific to the
context of the U.S.  We are *not* talking about cultural universals when we
talk of these particular "waves," and often we don't even agree among
ourselves as to what precisely these waves represent.

These postings in these two threads bring together points raised with Emi's
proposal for a third wave interest group and listserve through NWSA and
Pauline Bart's post about the difficulties (and possible strategies) for
teaching about 1970s feminism *here in the U.S.*    As I mentioned already,
neatly resolving the complexities of these issues seems like an
impossibility, and I would even argue that they need to maintain their
messiness in order to retain their authenticity.  That said, however,
exploration and interrogation of the issues continues, and rightly so.     I
will aim to keep my commentary (which will undoubtedly be long) as coherent
as possible.   Stick with me, and hopefully, I have made for worthwhile
reading.

I think much of the problem of how and when to teach about the mainstream
feminist movement in the U.S. in the 1970s is our own (often unexplored and
sometimes problematic) relationship to "the movement" and/or to the era, our
own analyses of the politics of "the movement," and our own
conceptualizations of feminism today.    There are multiple ways to approach
teaching "it," but I think the question that needs to asked is what is it we
are endeavoring to teach.  For example:  Are we attempting to present a
cohesive narrative of a mainstream movement?  Are we endeavoring to offer
students a moderate analysis of the problematic elements of "the movement's
history," either by distancing ourselves from it or justifying its
exclusionary politics as a simple necessity of the era?  Are we,
particularly as white women, uncomfortable with critiquing it or unsure how
to resolve our contemporary position to a meaningful critique of it?   These
questions are just a beginning to what we need to asking ourselves as
scholars and teachers today, regardless of our marking as second or third
wave feminists.

As Women's and Gender Studies scholars, we certainly employ the lens of
history to our work, both our teaching and our learning, but the hallmark of
the lens is the feminist framework we use to interrogate history, to
understand it, to learn from it and to learn about it.  Such analysis is
certainly part of the feminist paradigm we endeavor to provide students, but
that is not to say that Women's Studies is more prone to historical study
than other disciplines.  The active incorporation of historical perspectives
into our work is the characteristic of interdisciplinarity.

While I am all for teaching with context rather than chronology, Prof.
Bart's suggestion to re-order the teaching of the waves until students have
developed trust in the teacher concerns me, in part because I am wondering
why trust is needed for today's students to enter into a critique of 70s
mainstream U.S. feminism.    I would be glad more about that approach.

Besides the documented exclusionary practices of "the movement" (and that is
not to say that there weren't women of color or working class women present
and acting, but we cannot minimize or whitewash the fact that exclusionary
policies, practices, and perspectives *did* exist), another challenge to
teaching about 70s mainstream U.S. feminism is the historic look back that
marks it as "second wave" and allows for the potential marking of today's
*young* feminists as "third wave" feminists.  In that regard, it is
necessary to examine these metaphors we use, such as mother/daughter.  In
some ways, I think they are employed as fond sentiment and from a sense of
"passing the torch,"  yet they leave unexamined the hidden assumptions
within the metaphor, such as regarding sexuality, family, etc.  I agree,
too, that it risks positioning newer feminists as less wise and needing to
learn from the more experienced feminists.

Lastly, I will remark briefly on the conceptualization of "waves" merely
repeating an idea I expressed in a previous post, affirming Emi's positing
of third wave as a lateral evolution not a progeny of second wave.  In other
words, I re-assert the possibility that third wave is different from second
wave not merely in chronology but also in conceptualization, deployment, and
frameworks.  Another unexplored difference but definitely present tension is
the (generalized) identity of second wavers as activist scholars or scholar
activists who were trained in a given discipline and then developed a
feminist framework and pedagogy versus the third wave
scholar-activist/activist-scholar who is being trained in the
interdiscipline/ transdiscipline of Women's and Gender Studies.  One is not
better than the other, obviously, but consideration of the differences
warrants some critical and productive discussion as well.    The tensions
have not fully come to the surface, but they are there, not as an
intergenerational conflict but as a philosophical, political, and
ideological perspectivities.

Ok, too much to cram into a single post.  So, I will end here.  I have been
finding this thread quite engaging, in great part because of the
problematics it highlights, e.g. in the way we endeavor to engage in a
discussion and attempt to forge some kind of neat resolution to the problem.
It remains critical for us, as feminists, as scholars, and as activists, not
only to engage the topic of the thread but also to look critically at the
dynamics and politics of the conversation/dialogue/
discourse.  We need to be having this talk, and we need to not shy away from
the difficult spaces within it.

By the way, I toy with the idea of identifying the voice with which I speak,
particularly for those who do not know me, but I think there is a value in
leaving my words to speak for themselves for now.  Perhaps as the discussion
ensues, I will feel compelled to clarify my positioning (age/wave), but for
now, I will end here.  I look forward to feedback!

Best,
Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu
Coordinator
Office of Academic Services for Evening Students (OASES)
New Jersey City University

You [Lisa Burke] may not realize it but your approach to these
issues marginalizes other countries which are greatly influenced by
what goes on in America. It is easier for you to keep to simplify
matters by limiting your discussion to what is going on there, but
did you know that much of what we learned, as students in Canada,
was based on happenings in the US and the UK and from knowledge in
book form written by US feminist scholars? Do you realize that there
isn't even a forum in which to discuss these issues in the UK, on
the internet, that the States is still the leader in this area? 
WMST-L is the only forum in which these issues are discussed.  Why
do you think you have so many members from other countries?

Some of the discussion on "waves" has been theorizing in the abstract,
even though UK and US waves may be different in substance (the
Greenham Common peace effort in the 80s, doing away with American
nuclear missiles, was one main wave which now there is fear of a
repeat due to Star Wars proposals).  There seemed to be a tendency
towards a technological approach to the concept of waves, unrelated
to "natural" "historical" developments in the real world, which I felt was
necessary to speak out about.

You can say that the 3rd wave is a lateral movement, and not one
coming after* the 3rd wave, but it does* follow the 2nd wave historically
and that cannot be denied.  That has to be acknowledged, but at the
same time younger feminists have to make their mark in their own way.
And the mother/daughter relationship symbolizes that. It is the daughter
rejecting her parents' values and figuring out where she stands in this
world. It is a normal part of growing up - of testing the waters and making
mistakes.  The problem of trying to deal with 70s feminism at this time
is that 70s feminists are still around.  History is in the past, and while
it is in the present it is virtually impossible to sort out.  It is
necessary to gain some distance from it before all the strands start
coming together. And like the mother/daughter relationship, it is not
unusual for "daughters" to avoid dealing with their "mothers", perhaps
because their mothers have so much real power, or perhaps because
they are so close that their faults are so easily seen, and it is only when
they are farther in the distance that it is possible to examine their faults
and their strengths.

Oh and yes, I was trained in the 90s in Women's and Gender Studies (as
well as in Sociology), by profs from different parts of the world. I'm glad
I was. Now that I have gained some distance from it I see how important
it is to hear both sides - the traditional theories/methods, and feminist
ones.

Sue McPherson
sue  @  mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/homepage.html

I appreciate Sue's response, but I need to clarify the point I was
attempting to make about the context of discussions of 70s feminism and the
notion of waves to the U.S.  What I really try to underscore there is that
in the context of global feminisms, the concept of 70s feminism and three
waves does not apply, so, perhaps I should have said Western feminisms in
place of U.S. feminisms.    I do not endeavor to minimize the impact of the
contributions of the U.S. to understandings and constructions of feminisms
and the emergence, development, and institutionalization of Women's (and
later Gender) Studies, but I try to avoid thinking as though the U.S./the
West is the center and all else (places and people) fall at the periphery.

So, I will acknowledge Sue's crediting of the U.S. and the U.K. in shaping
some of , for example, Canadian formations of feminism and feminist studies,
but I will also highlight that Sue's remarks (seem to) presume a single
narrative of U.S. feminism, particularly in the 1970s/1980s.  If that is the
assertion, then I will again state my disagreement with such a
representation.

As for having to accept that the third wave, whether lateral or not, does
succeed the second (McPherson) depends on whether one privileges chronology
and inheritance (a characteristic of patriarchy) over the emergence of
multiple lateral ideologies and perspectives (represented by talking around
the table, a possible trait of feminism or anti-patriarchy).  So, I still
contend that the third wave is not necessarily a descendent of the second,
and apart from that, I do not accept the model of mother/daughter as
inherent in the relationship between second wave/third wave feminists.
Using a non-chronological model of waves, I would also suggest that there
are some "second wave feminists" who can now identify as "third wave
feminists," if we accept that third wave feminism is a set of ideologies
emerging during a certain time period but not necessarily at a given age.
I think the use of the mother/daughter metaphor is comfortable for some
because it seems to represent a natural evolution and explains away the
tensions between the two waves; I would argue that is a great,
counterproductive oversimplification.  It also offers a (false/faulty)
representation of what the mother/daughter relationship is, how it develops,
and what it becomes.

Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

> The problem of trying to deal with 70s feminism at this time
>  is that 70s feminists are still around

Well, just wait a few years and that problem will diminish and a few years
more and it will disappear altogether.

Then you will be able to sustain what of course needs to be detached academic
objectivity without mucking it up with the messy real life experience of
those who lived it.

Judith Laura
Ashira  @  aol.com
http://members.aol.com/Ashira

At 22:30 09/07/01 -0500,  Lisa Burke wrote:
>As for having to accept that the third wave, whether lateral or not, does
>succeed the second (McPherson) depends on whether one privileges chronology
>and inheritance (a characteristic of patriarchy) over the emergence of
>multiple lateral ideologies and perspectives (represented by talking around
>the table, a possible trait of feminism or anti-patriarchy).

As a seventies feminist myself, I have been reading this discussion with
open-mouthed amazement.  To me, the wave framework is a useful one because
women's movements rose and receded at different times in history. I don't
mean just in the U.S.: My particular expertise is Latin America.

Respectfully, I really disagree with Lisa Burke's statement above.
Chronology and inheritance are indeed characteristic of patriarchy,
particularly if you are discussing the alienation of property or privilege.
But just because it has those connotations doesn't mean that there are no
other possible constructs. The history of feminism is not linear but each
successive generation benefits from the work and suffering of the
generations that preceded it.  Just take rape as an example.  It is true
that it continues to be a major problem but nowadays, thanks to the work of
the "Second Wave" feminists, there are rape crisis hotlines, forensic
analysis of evidence, women prosecutors, heightened awareness of date and
acquaintance rape, and even the recognition, at an international level,
that rape is a war crime. When I started college in 1968, NONE of these
things existed!  I never thought I would see the day when rape would be
classified as a war crime. Our professors did not speak of these things,
for one thing because they were all men; in both my undergraduate education
and law school, I had only one woman professor at each school.

The fact that women's studies is a virtually organic outgrowth of the
"second wave" cannot be denied. Without the Second Wave feminists, would we
have women's studies? Rape crisis centers? Commissions on the Status of
Women? Women in the House and the Senate? Finally, I am puzzled about the
statement (made by someone else in a different letter) that the feminism of
the 70s is exceptionally hard to teach.  Why?  Students are ignorant of
many things. They come to my classes having never heard of Fidel Castro,
and thinking that Brazil is an island in the Caribbean. Today, I gave a map
quiz and had forgotten to bring down the numbered answer sheet, so I told
them to put the answers in two columns in the Pacific Ocean. Two of my
students--TWO!--didn't know where the Pacific Ocean is!
It is up to us to make these things real for them, to connect them with the
things that they know, and to introduce other things that they might never
have cause to learn if they didn't come to university. Teaching the
seventies is no harder than anything else.

My own experience in discussing my role in the women's movement is that the
students like and admire someone who brings experience of the world to the
classroom. Doing so takes the story out of the ozone layer of academia and
makes it more concrete for them.



~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Rosa Maria Pegueros, J.D., Ph.D.
Women's Studies Program &       Washburn Hall, 217C
Department of History           E-mail:
University of Rhode Island      <rpe2836u  @  postoffice.uri.edu>
80 Upper College Road, Suite 3  Telephone: (401) 874-4092
Kingston, RI 02881                    Fax: (401) 874-2595
<http://www.uri.edu/personal/rpe2836u/>
<http://nick.uri.edu/artsci/wms/pegueros.htm>

"I have learned from my teachers and from my colleagues. But
I have learned the most from my students." --Rabbi Hanina

Before, you decided that 3rd wave feminists had a different
type of education, totally immersed in WS, than 2nd wave
feminists who often had a more traditional basis of education.
Now you are saying that 3rd wave feminism is a set of ideologies
that emerged during a certain time period, but that age doesn't
count. That model certainly makes sense of what I've
experienced, and what I see around me, but that doesn't make
it a good model.  What I hear is, Age doesn't matter as long as
you act like you were born in the seventies/eighties. What I hear
is that older women must accept the norms of young people
today and simply ignore all the traditions they were brought up
with.

The mother/daughter model is a tool for understanding many
aspects of the two feminist waves being talked about, but no,
is not inherent, and is not the only* way of looking at the issue.
But it can highlight, symbolically, some of the characteristics
and challenges in moving from one model of feminism to
another which is what you are trying to do. It is quite normal
for younger women, and men, to reject the norms of the previous
generation and to rebel against everything the previous generation
stand for. And older feminists, and parents, with their established
networks and ways of doing things that worked for them, probably
don't see the need for change and don't particularly want to.

But if third wave femnism is partly about a set of ideologies that
have emerged, what are those ideologies? And instead of doing
away with mother/daughter model entirely, is it possible that there
are some useful elements in it and that it needs to be transformed
somewhat, and mother/daughter relationships themselves need to
be transformed, just as they have undergone transformation
throughout history.

Sue McPherson
sue  @  mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/homepage.html


> and apart from that, I do not accept the model of mother/daughter as
> inherent in the relationship between second wave/third wave feminists.
> Using a non-chronological model of waves, I would also suggest that there
> are some "second wave feminists" who can now identify as "third wave
> feminists," if we accept that third wave feminism is a set of ideologies
> emerging during a certain time period but not necessarily at a given age.
> and what it becomes.
>
> Lisa
> LBurke2  @  njcu.edu
>

Then you [Judith Laura] have to decide how you want the feminist
movement remembered and how you would like your
own part in it remembered, and document it.  If you don't,
others will do it for you. But I don't think it is particularly
easy to do that as life is messy, as you say.

Sue McPherson
sue  @  mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/homepage.html

Over my time on WMST-L I have learned to listen carefully to Dr. Pegueros'
observations, so I would like to seriously consider her response to my
postings on this topic.

I have no great opposition to the use of "waves" as a framework, but I
differ in my interpretation of the waves and their positionality to one
another.  Whether I am absolutely correct or not is not of as a great
significance as that we are so critically interrogating these paradigms and
exploring their usefulness.   The one thing that I see we are not addressing
fully in our understanding waves is the possibility that waves occur in
different but seemingly related bodies of water and what the relationship,
if any (yes, there is some), between/among these waves.

Let's step back from feminism for a minute and think of waves in connected
bodies of water.  Forgive me for being regional at the moment, but I am just
grabbing the closest bodies of water to me: the Hudson River, New York Bay,
the Atlantic Ocean.   (I realize there is a danger in this metaphor as far
as getting the technicalities of the oceanography incorrect, but I hope it
will, despite any technical errors, clearly demonstrate the point I wish to
make.  Anyone wishing to use the explanation may want to verify the science
of it before sharing it.)

That said, here goes:

There are two ways to view the waves in each of these bodies of water:

(A)  If it were possible to visually mark a wave, I could mark a wave that
starts at some point in the Hudson River on Day A and eventually observe it
in New York Bay, say, on Day B, and then observe it, say, on Day C in the
Atlantic Ocean.    In this model, we are focusing on the one wave from its
genesis marking its movement through these bodies of water (metaphors for
time and maybe place) likely being transformed over time and space(metaphor
for generations) by the climate and conditions (representing the social and
cutlural conditions of the day) around it.

(B) In this example, we will again mark waves visually, but we take an
aerial view of these three bodies of water, and in each of them, we will see
movement, waves occuring simultaneously, in the context of the given climate
and conditions in that given time and place.  Yes, the movement of the waves
in the Hudson River affects those in the Bay and those in the Ocean, but
there are many other forces that shape the waves, and there are those waves
that begin in the Bay and never had a full start in the River.  Then there
are those waves begun by rocks tossed into the surf at the ocean.  In this
example, some waves as continuing from one body of water to the next in a
linear fashion, reshaped and refueled across time and space, but many waves
are occuring simultaneously and not linearly.

It seems in most of our discussions we are arguing an either/or explanation
of the relationship of the second and third waves of feminism.  In these two
models, I suggest that the second one allows a more realistic explanation
 a little bit of both, shall we say) of the relationship between second and
third wavers.

No one can or should deny the contributions and advancements acheived as a
result of the activism of second wave feminists, but at the same time, no
one can deny the problematic facets of mainstream feminism in the U.S.
during the 1970s.   The negative points do not take away the
accomplishments, and the accomplishments do not take away the negative
aspects of exclusionary politics.    It seems we so easily get corralled in
a discussion of this topic to one side or the other.  We either feel the
need to defend "70s feminism" or rip it to shreds.  The truth is that
neither approach is the answer.  In acknowledging the achievements we must
also recognize the errors; that is the only way to present a fair and honest
representation of mainstream feminism in the U.S. in the 1970s.

I recognize that feminism in some other locations also experiences waves,
but when I suggest qualifying our discussion, it is because the arguments
made and the examples referenced are typically specific to the U.S. and we
need to be ever vigilant not to center the U.S. as the center.

I did not mean to suggest that there is a single construct of chronology and
inheritance, but I was correctly using contrasting models of patriarchy and
anti-patriarchy.  Certainly, the literature on leadership styles attests to
the assertion I make.

Yes, I agree that each subsequent generation is affected and influenced, for
better or for worse, by the generations before it.  That does not mean,
however, that history (herstory, ourstory) is only constructed
chronologically; it is also constructed laterally, etc.  The affect and
influence of one generation on another is not completely self-contained.
(Ex:  The future of the environment today is not only the outcome of
previous generations but also the actions of the current generation.)  For
that reason, the mother/daughter metaphor, while at times useful, is not
consistently applicable nor is it universally accurate.  Why don't we see
what other metaphors might work?

If I may add one historical fact to the conversation, I would like to
acknowledge the great strides that have been made politically by women over
the past three decades, thanks to the activism of feminists and the
scholarship of Women's Studies, and note that the first woman elected to the
U.S. Congress was elected before women even procured the right to vote in
this country.  Just another example of our complex herstory!

I look forward to continued dialogue, and I thank those who have offered
thought-provoking feedback.

Best,
Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

Dr. Pegueros wrote, in part:

Respectfully, I really disagree with Lisa Burke's statement above.
Chronology and inheritance are indeed characteristic of patriarchy,
particularly if you are discussing the alienation of property or privilege.
But just because it has those connotations doesn't mean that there are no
other possible constructs. The history of feminism is not linear but each
successive generation benefits from the work and suffering of the
generations that preceded it.   (clip)

The fact that women's studies is a virtually organic outgrowth of the
"second wave" cannot be denied. Without the Second Wave feminists, would we
have women's studies? Rape crisis centers? Commissions on the Status of
Women? Women in the House and the Senate? (clip)

Sue McPherson seems to suggest that both of my assertions, i.e. that third
wave feminists have a different kind of education and that third wave
feminism is marked by its ideological construct rather than the age of its
feminists as mutually exclusive arguments.     I do not at all see them as
mutually exclusive or contradictory; actually, I see them as interrelated
and supportive of the construction I make of third wave feminisms.

When I say that anyone who so identifies as a "third wave feminist" can be
one, I am not at all saying that one need merely act as though s/he was born
in the 70s/80s, nor do I devalue traditions and norms of previous
generations.  I am simply affirming the suggestion made by Emi Koyama that
third wave feminism is a set of perspectives and not simply a matter of when
one was born.  For that reason, second wave feminists might be able to
identify as third wave feminists today without losing anything.    Yet, at
the same time, the marking of feminist waves does not need to create chasms
between the two waves.

I would like to ask what the investment is in the mother/daughter metaphor.
Why is it that third wavers who oppose its use are expected to see its
value?  Why isn't it that second wavers who insist on its applicability
don't consider that there might be a more engaging metaphor -- perhaps
peers -- that would engage rather than offend?  I don't mean to sound
disrespectful here, but it seems that both sides of the debate are firmly
planted in their assessment of the metaphor.  For that reason, I suggest
revisiting it, seeing what it might become.    Is it necessary to do away
with it?  It is a part of history, so it will not go away.  For some, it is
useful, but in engaging its usefulness for some, what do we do about its
uselessness or offensiveness to others (a significant size group it seems to
me)?  And why do we need to be stuck on accepting a rebellion of the third
wave ("the child") against the second wave ("the mother") instead of
directing all our energies toward fighting the social conditions that
warrant our attention?  We must be cautious not to recreate within feminisms
those very structures we endeavor to deconstruct in the world around us.

Best,
Lisa

LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

Perhaps the difficulty with thinking in waves is that it frames
experience(s) within an historical context, reinforcing enlightenment
frameworks. Feminist geographers have discussed how thinking in
terms of space, time, location, place in the lifecourse, and scale can
work together to produce a very different framework for thinking
about these issues.   It makes sense if you think about it. For
example, I began taking women's studies classes (and became
politically active) in the late 1970's in Ann Arbor MI. But I was
coming from a working-class background/community and despite
the general tendencies within the feminist movements in the 1970-
80's in Ann Arbor, my social location and political perspectives were
quite different from many "radical feminists" in Ann Arbor during
that time. I was much more focused on class, privilege, and issues
of difference. I am sure these experiences varied for many across
the US - whether they were UAW activists in the auto plants of
Saginaw MI or students in academic classrooms in Berkeley, CA. So,
I think it's important to communicate to students how dynamic ALL
time periods are within any movement and although we can point to
some general tendencies (waves), experience is often framed much
better as a collage (or as hypertext) than as a narrative, which
thinking historically often reinforces.
Kim Cordingly
kcording  @  wvu.edu

When I made the comment on age, eg "What I hear is, Age doesn't
matter as long as you act like you were born in the seventies/eighties",
I was talking about my own experience - the message I get out here
in the real world.  I did not mean it to sound as though that was what
you were implying.  Most younger people don't know what it's like
to go through this.

But as we get older we are expected to keep up with social change in
the way we act, the way we dress, and the way we think - about things
like families, sex and so on. Some of us try, some of don't, and some
of us have to. But the changes are not always smooth going. People
don't just "hold perspectives".  We are born into a social/historical
context which influences our way of thinking.

We may try to keep up with the changes, but it often involves a great
deal of thought: Should I dress in today's fashion, or should I dress
like most women of my age dress around here? I don't want to look
like a middle-aged woman going through her second adolescence
so I try to come up with an image that is acceptable to me.  And the
same with more serious issues, like sex (sexuality), which happens
to be my research interest.

Any time you move forward you leave something behind - a favourite
oufit you can't wear any more, a way of thinking, or a way of teaching
 - so there is a sense of loss. Change is difficult. And sometimes some
old ways are better left behind, and sometimes not.

In  my previous message to you I asked about the ideologies that
have emerged in 3rd wave feminism, and it may be this topic that
needs to be addressed.  You say that we ought to be "directing
all our energies toward fighting the social conditions that warrant
our attention?  But do we all have the same concerns?  One of
mine is ageism, and part of what I mean by that is that I am not
accepted for who I am.  I am supposed to at least try to look
young, and act like I'm young. Sometimes it even seems that
those qualities are foremost, coming even before a
consideration of my knowledge and skills.

I don't know if 3rd wave feminists have come up with a set of
defining perspectives, but I would hope that when they do they
take into consideration at least some generational issues.
And I would also hope that 2nd wave feminists are able to
overcome some of their ways that have become too rigid and
outdated. But if 3rd wave feminists want to start a group based
on their difference from 70s feminists, which is only normal,
then I would rather that you state that generational differences
have somthing to do with it instead of denying it, and find other
ways of bridging the gap between the 2nd and the 3rd waves.

Sue McPherson
sue  @  mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/homepage.html

>(snip)
> When I say that anyone who so identifies as a "third wave feminist" can be
> one, I am not at all saying that one need merely act as though s/he was born
> in the 70s/80s, nor do I devalue traditions and norms of previous
> generations.  I am simply affirming the suggestion made by Emi Koyama that
> third wave feminism is a set of perspectives and not simply a matter of 
when
> one was born.  For that reason, second wave feminists might be able to
> identify as third wave feminists today without losing anything.    Yet, at
> the same time, the marking of feminist waves does not need to create
chasms
> between the two waves.
(snip)>
> Best,
> Lisa
>
> LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

I continue to find this discussion engaging, but I hope that others might
also add their perspectives to it.  Otherwise, I am tempted to think that it
might be running its course, as far as general interest, in which case,
maybe we should continue it off-list.  However, I will make this post to the
list.

I am hesitant, at this point and in this space, to author a list of third
wave ideologies and defining perspectives.  As a still emerging feminist
identity, third wave feminism cannot be neatly packaged into the limited
space of possibly essentialist generalizations.  Not wanting to appear like
I am avoiding the question or without an answer, however, I will venture to
say -- and I welcome agreement/disagreement especially from those
self-identifying as "third wave feminists" -- that one marker of third wave
feminism here in the U.S. is, as Emi Koyama has previously noted, the
theoretical framework of third wave feminism is one that allows for multiple
feminisms to be engaged simultaneously, shaped by a vigilant awareness of
the cultural contexts and social realities from which they emerge and by
which they are shaped, careful not to place the U.S./the West at the center
but rather as one of many spaces.

To avoid "beating a dead horse," as the saying goes, I will simply say that
generational issues, the context of the times, have relevance, but they do
not define or epitomize the difference between the two waves.  Therefore, an
enormous amount of time should not be spent on theorizing the waves as only
generational constructs.  I do wonder, however, if there is usefulness
possibly in exploring communication between second and third waves
feminists, particularly in the context of defining the waves, that might
yield useful insights for feminism and Women's and Gender Studies today.

Best,
Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

I have been at least trying to follow this whole conversation, hoping to use
some of its insights in my Intro. to Women's Studies this fall.  This is
some of what I've gleaned:

1.  Social movements surge up and subside at points in history.  In that way
they fit the metaphor of waves.

2.  At every point in time, there are people coming from different
experiences and perspectives.  Even at the crest of the wave, not all are in
the same position or share the same concerns.  In this way, the metaphor
becomes radio waves:  we need to "tune in" to gain full intelligibility,
tuning in meaning acknowledging and appreciating different specific
positions and perspectives.

3.  "Third Wave" feminists are mostly those who came of age in the 80s and
later, though it is possible for older feminists to gain Third Wave
perspectives as we move with changing times.  Third Wave feminists have
their own perspectives and concerns.

4.  There are characteristic differences in the outlooks of "Second Wave"
and "Third Wave" feminists.  One critique of the "Second Wave" that has been
articulated is that theorists of this wave mainly spoke to the concerns of
middle-class, heterosexual white women.  At least Pauline Bart (maybe
others) have pointed out, though, that the definitive collections of
writings of those years do contain statements by lesbians, working-class
women, and feminists of color.  The question, then, becomes to what extent
the movement as we remember it did include and honor these voices, with the
possibility that the "fact" that it did not is largely media hype.  (I'm not
taking a position here, just trying to clarify the issue.)

What I haven't seen much of is this:  apart from the diversity of
race-class-sexuality point, what is the specific content of the difference
between the "Second Wave" and "Third Wave" perspective?  What concerns are
more characteristic of one group vs. the other?  What issues matter to one
and not the other?

Can some of the people who have been so marvelously articulate in this
discussion speak to this point?

  -- Gina

>What I haven't seen much of is this:  apart from the diversity of
>race-class-sexuality point, what is the specific content of the difference
>between the "Second Wave" and "Third Wave" perspective?  What concerns are
>more characteristic of one group vs. the other?  What issues matter to one
>and not the other?


I haven't really thought about this in a rigorous way, but let me throw an
idea out there.  I wonder how much of the dialogue within the US about
feminism and multiculturalism correlates with the second wave/third wave
distinction.  For example, take Sonia Shah's recent article about American
feminists focusing on the Taliban's dress codes where Afghani women describe
it as the least of their problems.  It seemed to me at least a case of a
younger American feminist trying to unpack the idea that women are oppressed
primarily as *women*, and also to unpack the question of how middle-class
white feminists get to speak for other women.  Similar examples can be found
in reviews of Martha Nussbaum's last book or Is Multiculturalism Bad for
Women.

I'm not saying at all that these critiques were not presented by say,
African-American feminists during the second wave, but I wonder if their
centrality to feminist conversation is a characteristic of the third wave...
?

It's an idea.

    The question I raised about the study of history in Women's Studies came
from comments indicating that students don't want to know about '70s
feminism and other pasts. Perhaps I should have rephrased to say: 'Maybe the
question to be discussed is why history is a problem in Women's Studies. '
            beatrice
            bkachuck.cuny  @  prodigy.net

    Canada is not the only country marginalized in the approach to faminist
history. Kumari Jayawardena in 'Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World'
discusses feminism in Asia, some centuries before the formation of the USA.
Radha Kumar in 'The History of Doing' gives an account of women's rights and
feminist movements in India 1800-1900; some influence of the USA and UK is
evident, but mostly the movements dealt with issues and concepts important
there.
        - beatrice
        bkachuck.cuny  @  prodigy.net

Lisa referred to Emi as holding that
"third wave feminism is a set of perspectives" and not a birthdate.
Could either of you specify what those perspectives are? thank you.
Daphne

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu