Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

Is feminism dead?

Author and teacher Courtney E. Martin outlines her view of modern feminism, and proves that the movement is still alive and well.

What picture pops into your mind when you read the word feminist? Is it a woman layered in petticoats with a big, swooping hat, picketing the white house for her right to vote? Is it Gloria Steinem in her aviator glasses, sleek, straight hair hanging down both sides of her pretty face?

These are the dominant images that so many people associate with feminist history, and for good reason. The first image—the suffragist—represents the so-called “first wave” of feminist history. These women, philosophising and organising from the late 1800s through the 1930s, were primarily focused on legal and institutional changes that would allow women to gain more power and autonomy.

The “second wave,” then, was most active in the 1960s and 1970s and was concerned with social and psychological liberation (think dishes, contraception, and objectification). This era is best explained by its most effective slogan: the personal is the political. (Disclaimer: This, of course, is only a modern western history I’m referring to. Feminism has taken all kinds of triumphant and fascinating forms in other parts of the world, at other times.)

But what about now? Is feminism, as Time magazine and other short-sighted publications like to claim, dead?

Well of course not. My vibrant community of feminist friends and I are, last time I checked, breathing. Our hearts are pumping new feminist blood. Our minds—the most educated in history—are formulating visions of what feminism can and will be in the twenty-first century.

We are sometimes called “third wave,” though perhaps it could even be argued we are the fourth, after our Gen X older sisters and mentors (women like Deborah Siegel, Daisy Hernandez, Jennifer Baumgardner, Amy Richards, Sarah Jones, etc.).

My vision of feminism is defined by three major components: educated choice, genuine equality, and radical authenticity. Ask my friend Jessica or my pal Daniel and you will get slightly different answers, but you can bet that we’ll all be talking in the same general language and in the same philosophical country.

Educated choice: Both men and women need to have access to choices and, even more, they need to have the tools necessary to make good choices. It is not enough to just say that women should have access to abortions, for example. They also need to know all of their options and feel like they have a full understanding of the health risks and quality of life issues that each entails; they also need to have the economic provisions to make whichever choice fits their lives and values best.

Genuine Equality: We all deserve the same opportunities, the same access. This is a pretty straight forward concept in theory, but in practice, it is hellishly complicated. Take something like U.S. college admissions. Sure anyone can apply to Harvard, but not everyone comes from a family that can pay for an SAT tutor or has the cultural capital to encourage college. Until the U.S., and other western industrialized countries, recognize the way that networks and subtle class/race/gender dynamics influence supposedly non-discriminatory institutions, our work will not be done.

Radical authenticity: This facet of feminism gets talked about far too little in my opinion. A visionary twenty-first century feminism should aim to support both men and women to be their most authentic selves in the world, shedding prescribed gender roles and really getting in touch with their authentic desires, passions, and ethics. Feminist workplaces, for example, would nurture both men and women having present relationships with their children and fulfilling work lives. Men should be empowered to express a complex range of emotions, just as women must learn how to handle conflict healthily and assertively and take care of themselves, not just everyone else.

The most exciting thing about feminism, is that it is ultimately about leading more fulfilling, ethical, joyful lives, characterised by more healthy and genuine relationships. Who could argue with that?

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

PlanetStarbucks
27 November 2007 at 11:40

It is good to read an article on feminism that does not sink into a diatribe regarding reputed male suppression of women. I have found too often than when speaking to women on feminist issues they will happily reel off facts and statistics about the suppression of women throughout the ages without any regard to the real problems men have faced during these times. Only by acknowledging that both genders are oppressed by the same system can we begin to build a fair society where gender difference is celebrated, allowing both sexes to follow their own paths without unnecessary hindrance.

Jubliana
27 November 2007 at 12:44

Its a shame we can't accept that other than at the biological, at some profound level women and men compliment each other in ways that help their psyches, lifestyle, family, community and society. If women and men are unaware of this, they will continue to behave in self-constructed destructive ways that may satisfy the most basic instincts of sexuality and narcissism. We are equal and beautfiully complimentary. Once we can figure out what the authentic gender relationship is, we can figure out what the woman is and the man that completes her- sorry to all those individualist and angry feminists out there that don't see this as progressive. Humans have had a fair number of millenia to realise what their natures are, and how best to express them and organise them within the social (and traditionally spiritual) order. Bring back medieval chivalry and feminine virtue- not to shackle but to allow the essence of both sexes to trully flourish and entice each other once again. Ask yourself the question- what character traits of men and women work well together? Then you have the building blocks for more stable and harmonious future. For what its worth.

NewsCat
27 November 2007 at 16:11

Over Thanksgiving my 16 year old female cousin told me, perhaps a little provocatively, that she was definately not a feminist! For the life of me I couldn't get a really coherant explaination of why she was so anti-feminist, other than she felt that feminists were loud, whiny girls who complained too much.

The only story I got from her was there was some meeting at her school and a few white girls (we're white) were saying there weren't enough blacks in there suburban Ohio school. Then either the teacher or one of the other girls commented "those girls just need to get laid."

It broke my heart to hear her talk like that. I ended up having a long discussion with her and her older brothers about feminism but couldn't really get my points across. Her brother resorted to saying "Well why shouldn't women be judged by their looks? Don't you think men aren't judged by their looks?" And I couldn't somehow convey the point that Feminism is about equality, and doesn't she want the ability to earn as much as her brothers and not be always judged by how attractive she is. (For the record, she's a very pretty 16 year old girl).

craney808
27 November 2007 at 16:32

Thank you, Courtney, for your down-to-earth, honest persepective. Sadly, all most people know about feminism is whatever nonsense they hear from anti-feminists, who have done a pretty good job of distorting us, our viewpoints and our goals.

NewsCat, if you celebrate Christmas, maybe you'll consider buying your cousin a copy of the book "Full Frontal Feminism" by Jessica Valenti. It's targeted towards young women that age.

Thealogian
27 November 2007 at 16:45

Jubliana

Reading an article about feminism and radical authenticity translates to you as: gender essentialism?

What about same sex couples? Do they have to play defined (and complimentary) gender roles?

No--though that is the fiction (who is the boy and who is the girl? hehe).

Couples can certainly compliment each other (or clash horribly or amplify each others flaws)--but does that mean that men/women must play out roles our society has prescribed for us?

"Humans have had a fair number of millenia to realise what their natures are, and how best to express them and organise them"--this claim is much like the Fiddler on the Roof song "Tradition"! Just because some cultural practices (those most adopted by the white, patriarchal culture of the West) have been traditionally practiced and remain so today does not reflect some inherent righteousness to these practices. They are cultural products--not out of the great chain or being or God's intended lifeways for humanity. They are practices--but they are not "the best" nor are the universal. Essentialism, whether practiced by 1960's feminists or by patriarchy-apologists like yourself demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the real story of human history.

J. K. Gayle
27 November 2007 at 16:54

Great title!

You know 2nd waver (and multiply controversial) Phyllis Chesler has give a (multiple) answer to the same question, from her own "radical authenticity." The American Chesler is concerned now about feminist silence over "gender apartheid in the Islamic world, or on its steady penetration of Europe."

In The Chronicle of Higher Ed (2/24/06) she writes:

"Is feminism really dead? Well, yes and no. It gives me no pleasure, but someone must finally tell the truth about how feminists have failed their own ideals and their mandate to think both clearly and morally. Only an insider can really do this, someone who cares deeply about feminist values and goals. . . I am a feminist and an American patriot. Yes, one can be both. I am also an internationalist. There is no contradiction here. Finally, I am a religious Jew and am sympathetic to both religious and secular worldviews. Being religious does not compromise my feminism. On the contrary, it gives me the strength and a necessarily humbled perspective to continue the struggle for justice. . . Perhaps some of the very academics and mainstream feminists whom I am criticizing — but also trying to influence — will devalue what I am saying. Perhaps they will say that I am no longer a feminist — that I have betrayed feminism, not they. It will not change the truth of what I am saying. My hope is that this will resonate with people of all ages; men and women who are quietly doing feminist work within their profession, and there are many; feminists of faith, and there are also many; both Republicans and Democrats; educators, both here and abroad; and especially with the so-called ordinary people whose lives and freedom are at stake."

What does 4th wave feminism say about "head scarves, face veils, the chador, arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, or female genital mutilation"?

HopeMaddy
28 November 2007 at 06:37

Thanks for writing this great article! I'm going to share it with my Intro to Gender Studies class. Many of these students write, think and talk feminist but resist that they might BE a feminist. (www.feministing.com is changing that for some of them!)

In response to: What does 4th wave feminism say about "head scarves, face veils, the chador, arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, or female genital mutilation"?

As, I guess, a 4th Waver, I would say that it's complicated, and generally speaking, women within cultural contexts, not outsiders [read: white, Westerner], need to be leading movements to address these issues. I can support Muslim girls' right to wear head scarves in France for instance (if it is in fact, their informed choice), or local educators in Kenya working to end FGM, but it is not my place to be leading such a fight. I can however, educate my colleagues, bring awareness, and even hold fundraisers (which many of us have done for such issues.) However, it becomes even more important to highlight that while addressing an issue such as FGM or arranged marriages that we are not re-colonizing with Western methods of resistance, etc. Chandra Mohanty's Feminism Without Borders is an excellent place to gain some good theory before addressing the issues above. And also, not to be and Excuse Factory, but I have plenty to deal with right here at home; which I hope can have a positive impact on the world. I like to Think Global, Act Local.

gnuneo
05 December 2007 at 02:19

perhaps it is possible to differentiate between two types of feminism?

there is the feminist who falls into the trap of beleiving that ALL women, have ALWAYS been oppressed by ALL men, and thus actually plays into the hands of those who portray women as essentially inferior, and those 'feminists' who are not so much about attempted guilt trips, nor about men-hating, but instead are attempting to aim for *EQUALITY* (and btw - this also means equality for MEN!), and instead see feminism as being in support of feminine values, such as accepting the work done in the home as valuable (the essential critique that finally laid marxism to rest), crèches in the workplace, rights of access for separated fathers or mothers, and even the introduction of transactional analysis in schools to train emotional maturity in both genders.

it is recognising that femininity as a value is held by both genders, with whatever personal bias of the individual, and that therefore feminism is *inclusive*, and not exclusive to the bra-burning, men hating harridans of the tabloid press caricatures.

it is very much to be hoped this latter type of feminism is now coming to the fore, not only because the division of those working for human rights into different, sometimes hostile camps for women, racial minorities, homosexuals etc has catastrophically divided the rights campaigns, but also, and more importantly, because such a view, that feminism is not about blaming and hating men, but is about even aiming for men's rights in areas that are traditionally female 'territory' so as to achieve equality for all, is simply the right thing to do.

i am heartened to note, dearest Courtney, that you seem to be suggesting this IS the path that feminism is now taking.

Yay!! :D

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

After the truth

29 May 2009 10:09

Islam's young faithful

18 May 2009 17:33

The Pilgrim Pope

14 May 2009 10:53

Technology, the Latter-day way

12 May 2009 09:45

The Age of the E-church

07 May 2009 12:43

Christianity and the Petri dish

06 May 2009 11:48

Judaism and charity

30 April 2009 16:07

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker