Second Wave Feminsim

In our lecture this week, we were informed that consciousness raising is a form of structured discussion in which women connected their ideas to larger ideas of gender.  Before I learned this, I thought of consciousness raising as a bit extreme, but I honestly feel that it is a good idea to connect personal thoughts with “the big picture.”  It is easy to weaken one’s claim of rape, but when presenting the case that rape is highly prevalent within our society, it is much harder to ignore.

             I feel the same way about consciousness raising, as I do about the women who participated in the Seneca Falls convention; the more people you educate, the stronger your cause will be.  I feel that consciousness raising was and could be effective in our present situation with social inequality.  Not many people realize that women are underrepresented in the government.  There are a lot of things that fly under society’s radar (mainly due to the fact that a lot of people have forsaken the news—even the news is biased sometimes so we miss more.), and if people knew more about the issues, I feel they would try to make more of a difference.  For instance, Nancy Pelosi is the highest-ranking female politician in the history of the United States.  I am sad to say that I did not even know who she was until I saw her on the television.  If more people knew how much she has achieved, maybe other women would be motivated to aim for such greatness.

            If I were to write a manifesto, I think it would probably have to do with the gender wage gap.  Ever since I came across this issue in my Sociology class, I have been reading about the many different industries in which women are oppressed.  It is a fact that if a man takes a job in a stereotypical “woman’s position” or care work, such as an elementary school teacher, school nurse, etc., he is paid more money than his female counterparts, he receives more raises, and he is often promoted to the highest position within that field in record time (i.e. Principal).  My point is, that if women take a “masculine” job, they are paid less.  Similarly, if they work where society deems as an appropriate “feminine” job, they are still paid less.  The women of our society are stuck in a Catch-22.

            In the case of the radical Second Wavers, I feel that they lost their momentum because they did not focus enough on intersectionality.  Not all women in the 50’s were heterosexual, Caucasian, middle-class homemakers.  Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique makes many great points, but she neglects to highlight the suffering of the working class, or African-American women.  People just did not write much about women of color, alternate sexualities, or lower-class women; when they did, there was no way they could fully grasp the position of the women they were writing about, unless they belonged to one of those minorities.       

                

First Wave Feminism

            During the First Wave of Feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, called the first woman’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, NY.  The approach that these women followed to achieve equality, which truly stands out to me, is the notion that they travelled for 40 years after this convention as a method of consciousness raising.  They lectured to men and women about the facts, and over the course of their travels gained many supporters, and provoked many other conventions on the subject of women’s rights.  I feel that this method would be successful in any time period, especially for feminist activists present in today’s society.

             We live in a society of mass media, and widespread technology where it is easy to let others know what you think.  Although I feel that our predecessor’s method would be slightly modified in some ways to reach more people, I feel that their basic goal to spread their ideas on woman’s rights was very effective.  I would be willing to bet, that if I started a facebook group with a feminist agenda, and scheduled a meeting for everyone to come together, it would be highly effective.  Our society’s ways of communicating have changed (not necessarily for the best) and we can reach people from all areas of the world with a click of a button.  Although our society has changed and we have many new obstacles, there is no way to diminish their commitment to the cause of woman’s rights.

            I acknowledge the fact that racism and classism are still issues that divide feminists today, but I also believe that issues of sexuality, politics, etc., divide them further.  Until our society has grown past the remnant “otherness” that our history has impressed upon peoples of color, gender outlaws (coined by Kate Bornstein a prominent gender theorist, to describe bi-, gay, lesbian, trans-, etc.), or people of lower economic status, these issues will remain prevalent.

            Although I am saddened by the way suffragists handled the issue of Black suffrage, I can somewhat understand where they were coming from.  Angela Davis, in her article “Racism in the Woman Suffrage Movement” states,  “She [Elizabeth Cady Stanton] was determined, it seems, to prevent further progress for Black people—for “Sambo” no less—if it meant that white women might not enjoy the immediate benefits of that progress” (71).  As we learned from our lectures, not all black men felt the same way that Frederick Douglass did about women’s suffrage; some felt the idea ridiculous.  When seeing both sides of the coin, it is easy to understand why Stanton and other women would not want even MORE men denying them suffrage.  I feel that Blacks and women should not have resulted to insults and pettiness.  They were fighting for the same thing and they should have remained together in their process of gaining suffrage; it may have gone a bit faster.

            The greatest characteristics of First Wave Feminists were determination and their ability to remain outspoken in all areas of society, regardless of persecution.  These characteristics are much less common in our contemporary society because many young people feel that equality is present.  I personally know many people that feel politics do not apply to them, or that other people will do it for them.  These beliefs are both false; our state governs everyone even if it is not visible, and our representatives do not always fight for what we want.  I hate to say it, but I feel that a lot of our generation does not care because we have not suffered like the First Wavers.  It is like the old saying, “You don’t realize how good you have it, until it is gone.”          

Theorizing Public Policy: Why Does it Matter for Women?

                Within this Women’s Studies course, we have learned to define “the state” as “an abstract concept that refers to all forms of social organization representing official power in society: the government, law and social policy, the courts and the criminal justice system, the military, and the police.”  With this definition in mind, imagine the huge roles that these areas of our society, play within our lives on a daily basis.  Does “the state” maintain social inequality?  I firmly believe that it does.  In viewing the amount of women present in these sectors of society, it is obvious that men hold much more power due to their overwhelming representation within the government, justice system, etc.  As I stated previously in my “What is Women’s Studies” blog post, the United States is ranked 69^th in the world for women’s representation in government.  Until more women gain more positions of higher power, inequality will continue to reign in our society. 

            Another way that our society maintains society is through the military structure.  Men are placed on the front lines to die for their country, while women are placed far from harm’s way—in most cases.  This shows two things, either that society views women as incapable of doing the same job that their male counterparts do in battle, or conversely, that society holds more worth in women’s lives and their reproductive abilities.  Whatever the reason may be, they both provoke inequalities in society.

            I have never experienced discrimination by the state, but I know women who have.  I have spoken to police officers (family, friends, and random acquaintances) who have blatantly told me that they are MUCH more likely, and willing, to pull over a female than a male.  This is because, in their experience women talk on the phone, text, and in general are more distracted than men while driving (Not supported by any statistics, just word of mouth from them).  I found this offensive because I am a good driver; I pay attention 110% of the time, and I try to never answer my phone.  This just shows how stereotypes can even penetrate our law enforcement.

            Although I see great inequality within our current society, I believe that it is possible to achieve full equality within our present system of democracy.  I feel that in order to do this, more people must be educated on the programs that the women already present in power positions participate in, or in general, be educated on what is going on in our society as a whole (sadly, much of my generation lacks this).  I feel that more women need to gain the confidence to run for higher offices.  It is illegal for our society to discriminate against gender, color, sexuality, in considering someone for a job.  I feel that voting/politics should be the same way.  I think full equality will be achieved; hopefully, it doesn’t take 70+ years like the right for suffrage.    

Feminist Theory

            Until reading Bunch’s “Not By Degrees: Feminist Theory and Education,” I was very much unaware of the multitude of differences present among feminists.  Although I recognized many different beliefs present within feminism, I was under the impression that feminism was somewhat of an umbrella term.  The many different beliefs represented by Marxist, multicultural, liberal, socialist, and radical feminists are, in my opinion, equally persuasive.  Although I find faults, or exaggerations, within these vast arrays of beliefs, I also feel that they all make truly valid points. 

            Multicultural feminists believe that women of color face oppression unique to their race.  I find this highly viable; it is especially visible within the ethnic female Bildungsroman such as Toni Morrison’s Sula and Sandra Cisneros’s The House on Mango Street. Within these books, the protagonists—young women of color, face issues such as racism, poverty, abuse which prove to be obvious products of their position as outsiders due to their race.  Liberal feminists believe that women’s oppression is rooted in their exclusion from education, and therefore various options in life are closed to them.  This is evident in the fact that women writers are largely absent in literature, for the better part of our history.  The remaining feminists (Marxist, socialist, and radical) are all arguing about similar issues: Patriarchy, capitalism, and classism.  It is my opinion that all of these factors are tightly knit; they can be seen in all societies.

            In viewing these diverse types of feminism, it is clear to see that stereotypes of feminists are wrong.  Feminists are seemingly one of the most diverse peoples within our society.  By classifying these feminists within these concrete categories, it emphasizes their differences both in beliefs and in aims for achieving equality.  Men’s and women’s research styles are completely different in form.  According to Sandra Harding, historically men have asked “only those questions about nature and social life which (white, Western, bourgeois) men want answered” (6).  Women are different in that they ask questions that can benefit women.  Harding states, “The goal of [women’s] inquiry is to provide for women explanations of social phenomena that they want and need, rather than providing for welfare departments, manufacturers, advertisers, psychiatrists, the medical establishment, or the judicial system answers to questions that they have” (8).  In other words, women’s research was meant to benefit women, men’s research was meant to benefit men.  I do not believe that there is such a thing as a feminist method; women have participated in the same set of gathering information/data, but females are attentive to different information than males.  Harding states, “While studying women is not new, studying them from the perspective of their own experiences so that women can understand themselves and the world can claim virtually no history at all” (8).  Women take different approaches in studying the same subject; consequently, they yield very different information.          

What is a Woman? (Theorizing Gender)

         
            First, let me begin with a disclaimer.  Ever since I was a young child, my parents have taught me to accept hetero-, homo-, and trans- people, as well as all people of different race, class, or ethnicity than my own.  When I was five, I learned that my uncle was a transvestite (drag queen) and there was no consideration in my mind that he was weird, or even different from normal people.  Honestly, I thought he was the coolest person in the world because he would dress my sister and I up in his wigs and make-up.  I also grew up very much involved in the lives of a lesbian aunt and her partner.  My mother and father are very loving people and in combination with their support for my queer family members, and their constant struggle to weed out racist comments from within our extended family (my mother has a black godson), I can honestly say that I am accepting of all peoples.  With this said, I have a very liberal sense of what being a woman entails.

            The World Health Organization states that “‘Male’ and ‘female’ are sex categories, while ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are gender categories.”  I agree that a male is a person whose sex chromosomes are composed of X and Y (XY), conversely a female is a person whose sex chromosomes are composed of two X’s (XX).  I also agree that masculinity and femininity are gender categories.  In the story of Baby X, it is clear that researchers are combating gender socialization—a process in which our culture teaches us how to be boy or girl, according to patriarchal norms, consequently creating ideals of masculinity and femininity.  The parents of the story have a manual that states, “Never make Baby X feel embarrassed or ashamed about what it wants to play with.  And if X gets dirty climbing rocks, never say ‘Nice little Xes don’t get dirty climbing rocks’ [Stereotype of females].  Likewise, it said: ‘If X falls down and cries, never say, ‘Brave little Xes don’t cry.’”  This story shows that if society cannot label the baby with an extra X or Y, it disables society’s power of imposing these gender categories.  Society therefore, cannot craft males into strong, handsome, aggressive creatures, transversely, society has no role in the molding of females into beautiful, intelligent, passive creatures (aka patriarchal norms).  The story of Baby X represents this scenario and shows a result of intertwined and complementary aspects of masculinity and femininity within the child. 
  
            My definition of men and women, although typically synonymous with male and female, is quite different.  I feel that a woman is any person whom mentally identifies themselves as a woman, or in other words, a person who feels like a woman.  Therefore, my definition allows transgendered peoples whom are born men but identify with women, to be women.  I would also consider my uncle the drag queen, to be a woman and a man (like mushroom coral with can switch back and forth).  When he is not dressed up, he is a gay man.  When he is in full drag, he sees himself as a beautiful woman; he feels like a beautiful woman.  By ‘doing gender,’ and dressing/acting as a stereotypical female, my uncle becomes a woman.  At the end of the night, he returns to ‘doing gender’ in a homosexual male style.  I truly believe this to be possible, regardless of what society deems correct, appropriate, etc.  Who cares?  Let people be who they want to be!                   

What is Women's Studies?

          First, let me begin by stating that I am a feminist.  Although I do not actively fight for women's rights, I define feminism as a belief in the equality between men and women, with no limitations on race and class.  In this sense, I am a total feminist.  However, with that said, I do not fit any of the negative stereotypes that society imposes upon feminists.  I am not a man-hater, I am not a lesbian, I do not want to overpower men; I want equality.  I want to be able to have the chance to do anything I set my mind to, regardless if society deems me physically able to do so.
          In the last two years, I had an ex-boyfriend who worked in the local Sysco Distribution Center and they paid great money so I wanted to apply.  He said, "There is no way they would hire you.  You can't do the job!"  Of course, he was referring to my being a woman, which in his terms is synonymous with weakness.  (Needless to say, the relationship ended shortly after.)  I approached the situation logically, and I said that they could not discriminate against me because of my sex.  He replied rather proudly, "They won't say it is because you are a woman.  They will make something up.  They know how to get around stuff like that in court."  Obviously, they did seeing as how there were only two women working there and they worked in the office; both of them became the basis of the men’s objectification and flirtation "because they are the only women there to look at."  This is just disgusting to me.  In a way, this experience contributed to my being a feminist.  I was so offended by everything my boyfriend and his work friends said and did; I wanted to know how to change this.
          Throughout my Women's Studies courses, I hope to gain a new outlook on why situations like this are possible.  In my opinion, Sysco is a prime example of a male-dominated patriarchal society, in which women are controlled and kept passive.  I hope to learn ways of coping with attitudes like the Sysco men and figure out how to battle inequality in my own milieu.  I am not one of the women in our society that think we have achieved full equality.  Equality by definition means equal quantities on each side involved.  This is not present within our society.  The United States ranks #69 of the world’s countries who have women present in government (http://www.southernct.edu/womenscenter/topics/womenandgovernment/).  It is hard to believe that countries like Afghanistan and Rwanda—countries that many Americans see as oppressive towards women, rank much higher that The United States.  Until people stop laughing when they hear notions of a woman president, and begin placing validity in such an aspiration, our society will be unable to hold males and females as equal.