#OCCUPYMAINSTREET

Fourth Wave Feminism

How should a person be?

PHILLIP SCOTT ANDREWS

Audio version read by Sloan Garrett – Right-click to download

This article is available in:

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.

Chiara Ricciardone, www.chiararicciardone.com

68 comments on the article “Fourth Wave Feminism”

Displaying 11 - 20 of 68

Page 2 of 7

Anonymous

What are you so angry about? The article is against modern "feminism" as a means for women to want to own everything, from perfect possessions to the perfect career to the perfect man, calling instead for a feminism that focuses on who women are, and their role in society. Women still have to reach equality in many ways, but being consumer robots shouldn't be one of them -- in fact, in so doing, they contribute to the world wealth gap, thus turning these "feminists" (people who say they're feminists, say they want equality [for themselves], and so on) into enormous hypocrites. You can't be both free and a corporate-made consumer robot. Adbusters is saying feminists should choose to be free. That, as opposed to the feel-good mainstream stuff about how women should have it all and be superwomen and so on, would be true feminism.

Anonymous

That article didn't advocate a set of proposals to make women better consumers, The Atlantic article addressed the reality of women who had taken on board career and family, it says nothing of perfect possessions, perfect men or perfect career, it simply asked for what many European women are entitled. You ask women to be free. Free from what exactly? Many women do not want to be free of their children, or their wombs nor their husbands nor their careers. You "consumer" argument is interesting only if you show how you no longer consume. I mean you have to show how you manage to not purchase anything because you are able to produce everything....which of course we know to be utter nonsense.

Anonymous

This is ridiculous. Are all working mothers "seduced by high-powered careers"? What about teachers and other professions? How about those of us who have to work (to pay off student loans and support our families)? In addition to not having kids, are we supposed to also not work? I agree: this piece is rebel without a clue.

For most working mothers (and everyone else as well), Slaughter's piece was a call to arms, to demand more flexible schedules, to allow for more flexible work conditions, to allow people to care for each other, their children (and not have to hire nannies), or for aging parents. It's a call to break down the patriarchy-defined work environments, and create new ways for people to work and live.

"Rent their talent to the one percent for cheap"? Is education and academia just as much a capitalist field as investment banking? Where would you have us work, Chiara Ricciardone? I don't think Adbusters can hire us all.

Anonymous

So your point is that you accept the logic of consumerism and think that feminism should accept the logic of consumerism as well.

The problem with feminism is that it has lost its radical imagination, as evidenced by your comment.

Chris H

What's radical about dichotomy? "Career woman" vs. "matronly mother" - or trying to blend everything and be a "supermom."

The model itself is fundamentally flawed. Traditionally young women worked just as much as young men, just usually in different forms of labor. It's only been in the last 100 years or so that "mother" was a job where you took care of your kids.

If you look at traditional societies, it's the elderly that are caring for and raising children, not the young people. The young people are hunting, gathering, growing, harvesting, cooking, cleaning, maintaining the cottage garden, not sitting around with the kids. There's good evolutionary evidence that the reason menopause exists is that human societies need a population of elderly women who are no longer breeding to become the dominant caretakers of the young.

"Work, play - at sixty our powers and tastes are what they are at seventeen... Now, such is progress - the old men work, the old men copulate, the old men have no time, no leisure from pleasure..." - Brave New World

Anonymous

"Beware of those who authoritatively describe history in conformity with their desired view"

----Adbusters comment section poster.

Anonymous

"There's good evolutionary evidence that the reason menopause exists is that human societies need a population of elderly women who are no longer breeding to become the dominant caretakers of the young."

There's no scientific evidence to support the theory that menopause was the evolutionary result of societal structure. It's probably the opposite. Societal structures evolved because of certain physiological limitations, since societies and human behavior have advanced much faster than any biological changes due to evolution.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.