Fourth Wave Feminism
PHILLIP SCOTT ANDREWS
Late in June the Internet was possessed by one of its periodic tizzies, this time over an article in The Atlantic called “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” by Anne-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, professor of international affairs at Princeton, and, as she makes a point of insisting, mother of two sons. Slaughter drew on her privileged experience to revisit the classic problem of balancing motherhood and career, suggesting that what’s needed is a package of European-style, family-friendly workplace reforms.
Though her argument was not terribly original, the response was visceral – amassing over a million views in just a few days, the article swiftly rose to become the most-visited in the magazine’s online history. Most of the debate was mired in the shallows, ripping on the “feminist-baiting” title and back-to-the-past cover image (a coy baby peeking out of a briefcase). Other critics misconstrued Slaughter as “blaming feminism” rather than patriarchy. A few marginalized voices cried that “having it all” depends on the have-nots hired as nannies and maids.
Only four days after the piece came out, Slaughter recanted the “have it all” frame. Yet the title keenly reflects the bankruptcy of previous feminist goals in the present age of austerity … the vacancy of a political ambition expressed in the main verbs of consumerism: having, getting and giving up so as to get and have some more.
Meanwhile, the younger generation of women sidesteps Slaughter’s dilemma altogether. They mostly refuse to bear children at all – perhaps in an instinctive response to cataclysmic overpopulation – and they’re not seduced by high-powered careers. “Neoliberal capitalism is patriarchal to the core … Women are the other 99%,” wrote one anonymous fourth-wave feminist in the early days of Occupy Wall Street, presaging the Feminist General Assemblies that have since become a movement mainstay. Instead of agonizing over how to be both an ideal mother and an ideal worker, emerging feminists are worrying, as the title of breakout writer Sheila Heti’s book puts it, “How should a person be?” Heti’s novel-from-life, like the work of young filmmaker Lena Dunham, mines the personal to disclose, and then transcend, the intimate and universal degradations of life in today’s fully pornified male culture. That same spirited, self-exposing courage propels the naked activists known as Femen in Europe and the Slut Walk marches worldwide. In the public sphere, their bodies’ vulnerability transforms into adamantine solidarity.
While Slaughter and her establishment cohort rent their talent to the one percent for cheap, a counter-tide of women is redefining the direction of the next decade of feminist dreams. From the turmoil may emerge a revolutionary women’s struggle … a tidal wave concerned with how to be, not how much to have … and perhaps, one day, a landmark victory that will outshine even the suffragettes’ triumph.
68 comments on the article “Fourth Wave Feminism”
Displaying 1 - 10 of 68
Page 1 of 7
Anonymous
Has anyone noticed that the more feminist a woman is, the less feminine she is? I don’t mean feminine in the sense of wearing dresses, having children and cooking, I mean in the deeper sense of mystery and presence. Deep femininity could easily change this world, could revolutionalise it in the blink of an eye, could turn the puppy-men of the planet into superheroes and leave the monsters with nowhere to go and devastate the planet with the strange power of a woman who really is what she really is, deep in her bones - but nobody understands this, recognises it or even dares give it a name.
Instead women are supposed to fight, to be man’s identical equal - as stupid and corrupt and selfish and restless and virtual as he is in other words, to fight for equality in the prison! The complimentarity of gender relations is then systematically warped and mistaken for the social and physical inequality (and iniquity) that man has inflicted upon women over the past few thousand years. With lost discernment any call to love woman becomes confused with attachment (or excitement) and any call for woman to get in touch with her love becomes confused with passivity.
It all depends How Neolithic You Are I suppose...
http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/2012/07/how-paleolithic-are-you.html
doors of perception
Thank you. Loved the Paleo piece! The issue at hand in the responses to this article is that people are reading it from the current paradigm. Hard to talk about the true feminine from that viewpoint. Which is perfectly ironic! LOVE.
Anonymous
I'm so sorry, but if one of your biggest problems is shy men, then contrary to what you think, you've got it pretty good.
Anonymous
"Has anyone noticed that the more feminist a woman is, the less feminine she is?"
Exactly how are you defining "feminine"?? What do "mystery" and "presence" mean here?? It sure as heck sounds to me like you've bought into the misogynistic stereotyping of women as gentle, fragile creatures.
I vaguely get where you're going with this, and I don't think you mean harm, but dude, you need to maybe talk to some actual feminists and get your basics straight.
Anonymous
I’m not defining feminine. True femininity is resistant to definition. The reason why you only vaguely understand what I’m saying, and why it looks like ‘misogynistic stereotyping’ is because anything that cannot be defined acquires definitions which almost immediately are corrupted. This is also why if you start talking about transcending the mind ‘it sounds like Buddhism’ or social equality ‘it sounds like socialism’ or systematic bias in the left-liberal media ‘it sounds like conspiracy’ or the freedom of nudity ‘it sounds like you’re a hippy’ or the insanity of democracy ‘it sounds like you’re a fascist’ and so on and so on.
The truth is not the image or the definition of truth. I invite you to investigate the site linked above to explore the essence of the matter more fully.
As for feminists, they are reacting against a monumental, epic injustice - but they have, historically at least, taken the fight to insane men in the world of insane men - where they cannot possibly win, or can only win by becoming insanely masculine; which very often happens because women are more sensitive and ‘psychically absorbent’ than men.
The mind, which can only understand arguments in terms of opposites, interprets this as ‘aggressive, active women are a problem, therefore the answer is weak, passive women.’ True femininity goes far beyond this silly dichotomy.
Anonymous
This is looking more and more like a conversation between someone who is not trying to define femininity and someone who is saying femininity cannot be defined.
Anonymous
Yes - but just because something cannot be defined, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Or. Femininity is defined by its resistance to definition. With the loss of one kind of defined femininity (‘weak women’) came an increase in another kind of defined femininity (‘strong women’). Neither are the indefinable truth of the matter though.
To get a taste of the truth plump down to what separates a happy little girl from a happy little boy, or a wise old woman from a wise old man, or a really sane young man and a perfectly neurosis, violence and anxiety free young woman. The difference is absolutely unmistakable - but so hard to know in a world where innocence, wisdom and sanity are so rare.
Discussing gender an insane world is the same as discussing nature. Nobody knows what it is anymore.
Anonymous
But nobody knows what it is any more, precisely because it's not what it once was, and never will be again.
Anonymous
Actually I've noticed quite the opposite.
I've noticed that the more feminist a woman is, the more feminine she is.
I think what you mean is that the less feminist a woman is, the more conformist she is.
Anonymous
Wow, this is a new low Adbusters. Not only is this article off point, but it is a vapid cliche compared to the mainstream debate going on. What exactly are you saying here? That young women aren't having kids due to overpopulation? That is not true, nor if it were, a coherent argument make.
Being instead of having. How very Buddhist. I don't know if you noticed but the 60s notions that "Oriental" religions are somehow different and politically radical compared to more conventional religions - well that is a myth. It's not just a Buddhist idea it turns out. It's also very Christian (which is why Buddhism resonates so well, because it is already similar to our Xian values) Yet somehow "Christian" nations created Capitalism.
I'm amazed that the mainstream debate, as vapid as it usually is, is not head and shoulders above Adbusters. This is a teenage parody. Rebel without a clue. Are you supporting feminism or not? If not, do you have any definition of what you do advocate?
It use to be Adbusters could be counted on for subversive ideas. Then it stopped being funny. Then at least you could be counted on for interesting ideas, even if they weren't much better than the Marxist who takes himself too seriously and seems to exist for the sake of printing a perpetual "revolutionary" newspaper. Now I might as well read a mainstream blog and get more political advocacy for radical change.
Pages
Add a new comment