"Waves" of Feminism

PART 4 OF 5

I am wondering if there is a seminal article or book which
clearly defines what is meant by first, second and third
wave feminism?

In return I'd like to say that the connections between
"celebrations" or at least articulations of graphic sexuality
from an aggressive/male standpoint and "third wave"
as opposed to "second wave" feminism are discussed
this week in two central intellectual publications.
The admittedly very conservative _Times Literary
Supplement_ devotes its opening section to essay-
reviews and reviews of books very like _Jane Sexes
It Up_ in their thrust (joking pun intended), e.g.,
Catherine Millet's _The Sexual Life of Catherine
M. which unlike Hewitt's book and like _Jane
Sexes It Up_ has sold very well and made a stir
in France and elsewhere.  Estelle B Freedman's _No
Turning Back:  A History of Feminism and the
Future of Women_ is also reviewed.  The issue is
May 24, 2002.  There is also an intelligent (in my
view) analysis of Catherine Millet's book in this
week's _New Yorker_ by Judith Thurman, "Doing
It in the Road" (June 10, 2002, pp. 86-90).

Ellen Moody
Ellen2    AT    JimandEllen.org

http://www.sexingthepolitical.com/2002/one/links.htm


There is a journal specific to Third wave Feminism and this may be a
good resource for you.


dian fitzpatrick
feministd    AT    msn.com

Thurman's article is available online:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?020610crbo_books

Semira Dallali
vidabo    AT    wanadoo.nl

Ellen Moody wrote:
>
 There is also an intelligent (in my
> view) analysis of Catherine Millet's book in this
> week's _New Yorker_ by Judith Thurman, "Doing
> It in the Road" (June 10, 2002, pp. 86-90).
>

I'm going to try to ignore all the condecending tone I see in you post,
Linda, and reply to you straight (so to speak) just on where I think you've
misunderstood me.

Radical feminists, along with Beauvoir, were some of the first people to say
that women were constructed, for sure.  But that is a long, long way way
from saying that women DON'T EXIST. In radical feminist organizing--with
which I was intimately involved, from 1971-1981--no one would ever have said
that women do not exist.  Radical feminists identified ourselves as
"woman-identified-women."  That's a pretty hard thing to do if women don't
exist.  (Radical feminists also, in the main anyway, saw Beauvoir as
"bourgeois."  A word to wise, Linda, in trying to understand this stuff:
just because a woman seems to be "second-wave," it doesn't mean that she
agrees with everything everyone seen to be of that "wave" said.
"Second-wave" was a very diverse movement.  It's very hard to make
generalizations.  It's also not at all obvious how Beauvoir should be seen
in realtion to it, since I would doubt that most active second-wavers had
ever read her.  We were all reading Emma Goldman, the Movement press, Mao,
and Marx.)

One of your confusions with second wave seems to turn around the issues of
strategies vs. goals and of short-term strategies vs. long-term strategies.
In the long term, second wave did tend to say that it had the goal of
eliminating gender altogether.  However, it also clearly understood--at
least in its best formulations--that in PATRIARCHY, elimating gender really
meant eliminating WOMEN, and turning everyone into men--just as creating a
liberal universalism means turning everyone white and Western (and male).
So, in the short term--which we recognized eventually was probably going to
be the whole of our lives (we're we smart!)--the point wasn't to eliminate
women but to LOVE them and value them.  (Some see this as marking the turn
from radical to "cultural" feminism, but in my view, it was true of both
later radical and cultural feminism.)  Second wave recognized (again, at its
best) that LOVING women in a culture of misogyny is a radical act.  From
what I've seen, third wave has a lot to say about sex, but what does it
think about love?  Sex isn't radical--who really thinks it is, except
conservatives and other Puritans?--its love that's radical.  It's taking our
selves and one another seriously as valuable fellow human beings--in a
capitalist culture that makes us all expliotable in order to suck away our
life force for the profit of few--that's radical(see, of course, Audre
Lorde). We only build sex up into such a big thing because we are so empty
and so alienated, even from our own lives and selves.  We think if we can
make the earth move, or ourselves unconscious or numb or altered through
sex, we can forget if only for a little while that we live in a culture that
provides us with lives that are so much less than what they "should" or
could be.  (That's part of what I meant by my "bourgeois decadent" crack.)


What is really subversive in this culture is women-loving-women, also pretty
hard....  But you must get the point by now?

The point I tried to make about buildings was related:  we recognize that
bulidings are constructed, but when do we ever say that they DON'T EXIST?
Wouldn't we, indeed, be seen as pretty weird--and maybe even stupid--if we
went around all the time asserting, "buildings don't exist"?  But "women
don't exist," we're fine with that!  You think that's without political
implications?

You really missed my whole point on transsexuals, in your exhortation to me
to GET OUT THERE AND ORGANIZE!  (Just another word of advice--please refrain
from preaching to people you do not know.  It's so unseemly--and more than a
little rude.)  I tried to be clear that I was not "complaining," as you so
inaccurately (and...) put it, but using this case to illustrate a point
about subversion and the State.  Many people today like to paint
transsexuality as "subversive" because it "undermines" gender.  But if it is
so subversive, why is the patriarchal State so willing to authorize it,
allowing legal sex reassignment for any transsexual willing to live as the
"other" sex?  While the State is not equally willing to provide the same
imprimatur to women-loving-women?  In fact, transsexuality is not
progressive or subversive of the existing order of gender, it is profoundly
conservative.  It is the very conservatism of so much gay organizing today
that makes me stay very far away from it.  Its basic premises are too often
irredeemably liberal for me to understand how it fits into my ideas of how
we make a better world for all of us.

In sisterhood and struggle,

Eileen Bresnahan
Colorado College
ebresnahan    AT    coloradocollege.edu

Sounds like a lot of the same things that happened to second wave theorists
and activists are happening to third wave, so please don't participate in
perpetuating the problem, for either wave.

Specifically, Gloria Steinem is/was only the "archetypal" second-wave
feminist in the eyes of the media.  Second-wave was a complex movement,
which existed in liberal, radical, cultural, and socialist variants--to name
just the main ones (and even that would get argument).  Most radical
feminists I knew "back in the day" were almost as critical of Gloria and NOW
as they were of the rest of mainstream liberalism--only she bugged them an
awful lot MORE.  Please don't caricature second-wave.

Eileen Bresnahan
Colorado College
ebresnahan    AT    coloradocollege.edu

-----Original Message-----

Sent: 6/5/2002 11:05 AM

Hello, Ellen,

The anthology *The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory,* edited
by Linda Nicholson, has key articles and also very good introductions
that place these articles in context.

Charlene


M. Charlene Ball, Ph.D., Academic Professional
Women's Studies Institute
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA   30303-3083
404-651-4633
404-651-1398 fax
mcharleneball    AT    gsu.edu
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwwsi

On 06/06/02 09:49 am, "Eileen Bresnahan" <EBresnahan    AT    COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU>
wrote:
> A word to wise, Linda, in trying to understand this stuff:
> just because a woman seems to be "second-wave," it doesn't mean
> that she agrees with everything everyone seen to be of that "wave"
> said. "Second-wave" was a very diverse movement.  It's very hard
> to make generalizations.
[snip]
> One of your confusions with second wave seems to turn around the
[snip]
> But you must get the point by now?
[snip]
> You really missed my whole point on transsexuals, in your exhortation
> to me to GET OUT THERE AND ORGANIZE!  (Just another word of advice--

Am I the only person who sees the pattern of constant patronizing
directed toward Linda here? When she and Eileen disagree on something,
it's not because they have different positions or priorities or goals,
but it is because Linda doesn't know the history, or she's making
generalizations, or she's confused and in need of advices.

> Many people today like to paint transsexuality as "subversive"
> because it "undermines" gender.

Duh. Transsexualism is not any more "subversive" than, say,
woman-loving-woman. People are just trying to survive, running
through the barbed wire sometimes like Fred Martinez Jr. did
moments before his death in Cortez, Colorado.

> But if it is so subversive, why is the patriarchal State so willing
> to authorize it, allowing legal sex reassignment for any transsexual
> willing to live as the "other" sex?

How many states and cities have civil rights statues that protect
people from discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation,"
and how many also have "gender identity"? How many states and
cities have hate crimes legislations that include crimes motivated
by homophobia or biphobia, and how many of them also include
transphobia? How many states and cities provide same-sex partner
benefit to their employees, and how many of them provide insurance
coverage for hormones and surgery for transsexual people? How many
elected officials are out as gay or lesbians, and how many out as
transsexuals? How many gays and lesbians are beaten by the police
officers on a regular basis, and how many transsexuals?

By using an arbitrary measure to make an argument about who is
more oppressed or sanctioned by the state, you are engaging in a
decades-old pattern (within radical feminism) of ranking of the
oppressions, which has been criticized by Cherrie Moraga, Patricia
Hill Collins, and many others.

> While the State is not equally willing to provide the same
> imprimatur to women-loving-women?

Did the State of Colorado issue you a driver's license that does
not match how you feel comfortable living as? By describing
transsexual people as having more rights than you because of
a remedial policy that you did not need in the first place thanks
to your cissexual privilege, you are making the same argument
as the religious right when they claim gay and lesbian activists
want "special rights" beyond those enjoyed by heterosexuals. It
makes me sad that in a state where the majority of voters are
willing to label gays and lesbians as sick and abnormal, even a
self-identified feminist like yourself perpetuate such a
"special rights" rhetoric when it is about the issue where
you have the privilege.

As I pointed out in the last post, the fact is that transsexual
people do not have the right to marry more than anyone else: it's
only the heterosexual people who get the right, whether they are
transsexual or not.

> In fact, transsexuality is not progressive or subversive of the
> existing order of gender, it is profoundly conservative.

It is not any more conservative than everyone else who identify
with a gender. Why do you assume that transsexuals have more
responsibility to subvert "the existing order of gender" than
anyone else? I see this as shifting of responsibility from the
privileged group (cissexuals) to the marginalized one (transsexuals),
like how people of color are often expected to do more work to
dismantle racism than whites.


Emi Koyama <emi    AT    eminism.org>

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

Dear Sisters,

I have big problems will all this second and third wave stuff and don't
really accept it. First wave, if we want to call it that, and there are
reasons for not thinking in waves since the feminists never go a way or
stop but are sometimes in better climates to be noticed than in others
(i.e. we might all be part of the same wave) went on from 1840s to 1930s
when it met the second world war. That means nearly 100 years.

So why do we think we are in need of a third wave now. I tell my students
wave theory does not work and why. Us 70s feminists are still around though
most of the 30s ones are not (they were when I started out in 70s and I
talked with some). We are still working. The issues are still there and now
women of all ages are working on them, violence against women for instance.
We have not had a world war to divert us though we have had capitalist
triumphalism and postmodernism. It has not been a good climate recently
though we have carried on. Just because some women are young does not make
them a third wave, or a fourth one. Things don't move that fast. Have we
had 3 waves in 30 years whereas our foresisters had one (perhaps) in 100?

I don't agree with waves. I think there is feminism which struggles to
survive historically and for which many issues, unfortunately, remain the
same though some new ones appear and some (but not many) campaigns are
reasonably successful. The 30s women were there throughout the 40s and 50s
and early 60s working in different ways, perhaps, the lesbians were there
such as in the Six Point Group in LOndon in the 50s where they sought to
explain why women needed to live together.

I think this wave thing has to do with anti-feminism very often. A desire
to not be seen to be like those old boring anti-sex women of the 70s,
perhaps young women's mothers themselves are some of these. There is an
arrogance in all this reinvention and sometimes contempt. I have always
been proud to see a direct lineage of struggle between myself and sisters
back to the 1840s. I don't accept that I was part of creating a new wave in
the 70s. Maybe for a while I thought feminism began in 1969 till I began to
meet older women and read the history. Now young feminists have older
feminists all around them and have no reason to think they invented
feminism. There is tremendous anger in the so-called third or fourth
wavism. What on earth is it about? Is it ageism? There is a great danger in
the constant rejection of what has gone before rather than developing it to
meet new situations.

And I agree that my 70s feminism had nothing to do with Beauvoir of whom I
was unaware in early 70s and always critical of once I did read her. I have
never been able to understand the huge enthusiasm for Beauvoir.

In sisterhood,

Sheila J.

The accusation that experienced feminists who critique the conservatism of
the 'third wave' are being 'patronizing' is a great smokescreen. It's
a trump card for any younger feminist to deflect criticism (just a
reminder that I am one - a young feminist, that is).
In the post referred to Eileen was responding to a breathtakingly arrogant
post in which she was advised to stop complaining and get active (how
'patronizing' to assume that someone on the list is inactive or to exhort
them to a kind of solidarity - ie that with 'transpeople' - which they
clearly find politically compromising). Linda did not seem to understand
Eileen's feminist criticisms of transgender and instead urged her to get
out there and campaign in solidarity with transpeople. The very point
Eileen was making (and had to make again in her reply) is that she sees
transpeople as acting in a way *contrary* to her interests.
Moreover, you claim there is a *pattern* of condescension here. Ironic
coming from someone who is constantly advising those on the list with
different views that they are ill-informed or lacking analysis.

-----
Heather Benbow
Department of German and Swedish Studies
University of Melbourne VIC 3010
Australia
Ph: +61 3 8344 5202
Fax: +61 3 8344 7821

On 06/07/02 12:53 am, "Heather Merle Benbow"
<benbow    AT    MYRIAD.ITS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU> wrote:
> The accusation that experienced feminists who critique the conservatism
> of the 'third wave' are being 'patronizing' is a great smokescreen.
> It's a trump card for any younger feminist to deflect criticism

Please look at what Eileen wrote once again:

> A word to wise, Linda, in trying to understand this stuff:
[snip]
> One of your confusions with second wave seems to turn around the
[snip]
> But you must get the point by now?
[snip]
> You really missed my whole point on transsexuals
[snip]
> Just another word of advice--

These languages (and *not* the fact she is criticizing Linda), especially
when they are used by those who hold greater institutional powers, are
what I consider "patronizing." You probably would, too, if I addressed
you (or anyone else) in this manner - don't you? Eileen could have
easily stated her criticisms or objections to Linda's arguments without
these patronizing patterns. For example, I thought Eileen had a good
point when she made a point about the difference between long-term
goals versus short-term reality, and she managed to make this rebuttle
without having to make a patronizing remark (and I did not label that
as "patronizing" just for the sake of deflecting her criticism, as you
now allege). Unfortunately, Eileen felt the need to resort to a series
of patronizing statements elsewhere, as shown above.

The true "trump card" to deflect criticism is when an older feminist
says "you don't know history because you weren't there; whatever you
may have learned was distorted and not real"; this one deserves the
title of "trump card" because it is not disprovable, just like many
conspiracy theories - that is, any evidence to the contrary can always
be dismissed as "historical distortion" by someone making this statement.
A young woman complaining about being patronized is different from
this in that you can look at the actual statements made by the senior
feminist and evaluate if they amount to the level of patronization
(in this case, I think they are).

> Moreover, you claim there is a *pattern* of condescension here.
> Ironic coming from someone who is constantly advising those on
> the list with different views that they are ill-informed or
> lacking analysis.

It's true that I criticize those who (I think) are ill-informed or
lacking analysis when it comes to how one positions around the
systems of oppressions. For example, I made at least the following
three concrete criticisms of Eileen's treatment of transsexuality:
(1) engaging in ranking of oppressions; (2) making a "special
rights" argument by describing remedial policies as a privilege only
transsexuals have access to (when non-transsexuals don't need them
in the first place due to their cissexist privilege); and (3)
shifting of responsibilities from the dominant group to the
marginalized one. These are very serious issues that any feminist to
consider, and I do hope that she would respond and refute my
criticisms if she does not think she deserves them.


Emi Koyama <emi    AT    eminism.org>

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

The kind of infighting between self proclaimed 2nd and 3rd wave feminists
makes me quite ill.  It reminds me of all the other infighting that
characterizes every movement for social change I have ever been involved
in, when people in it feel somewhat stymied.  It is far easier to spend
your time fighting those who agree with you on 7 points and disagree on 2
points than it is to persuade other people to support our cause.

Everyone accuses everybody else of condescension and everybody is
right.  We who have been feminists for thirty or thirty five years should
be deliriously happy there are younger women ready to call themselves
feminists and to work on issues they think are important, even if they are
different from those we worked on , or when they work on them
differently.  Younger feminists should be glad we are doing our work and
not want to get us out of the way.  No, we don't always understand each
other. So? Do you always understand your partner or even your dog?

marge piercy hagolem    AT    c4.net