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 21 - 30 of 68
Page 3 of 7
Chris H
Absolutely nothing "happens because of" something else. That's Lamarckian evolution.
In modern evolution, traits arise randomly and those traits provide an advantage, disadvantage or are neutral to the individual or population.
If you don't have a problem saying that "there's good evolutionary evidence that the reason we have small teeth is because we developed cooking and knives," then you shouldn't have a problem with the way I phrased my statement.
Here's a scientific article that talks about several reasons why menopause may have evolved, including the theory that human women who cannot bear children themselves improve the reproductive potential of their daughters and other young, related females. Menopause is an interesting phenomenon partially because it's very rare in the animal world. It is only known to occur in humans and pilot whales: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/peccei-meno.pdf
Anonymous
Square peg in a round hole champ.
So let me get this straight.
You are saying that the reason menopause is found universally amongst all human women is because natural selection has weeded out all non-menopausal women because women use to have babies into their mid 50s?
I don't think there are medals for persistence, unless you made one of those up as well. How was the award ceremony?
Anonymous
The more likely cause of menopause, evolutionarily speaking, is the fact that women were dying in childbirth. So the more children women had, and the older they became, the more likely they died. The older ones who lost the ability to bear children, were the ones who evolutionarily survived, and the ones that remained fertile, died out. That's the more logical evolutionary scenario.
You can cut and paste all the links you like, but the fact is, our physiology, biology and neurological impulses are far slower to change than societal, cultural and behavioral changes. Look around you. There's lizard brain behavior everywhere, with the majority of people unable to live up to any collective moral imperative, instead choosing to live mindlessly and with the same barbaric, violent and instinctual impulses we've had for the last two thousand years.
The problems with today's society are evidence of our slow evolutionary change. Which is why we need to rapidly catch up to our technological, scientific and intellectual capacity, in a behavioral, sociological and moral sense.
Chris H
You can't pass on traits post-reproduction. Do you see what that makes no sense? There are only a few reasons why non-reproductive traits are generally positively selected. This would be a reason why, for example, nonbreeding worker bees exists. It's definitely not the only theory, it's just one theory, although I tend to lean towards it.
Of course our physiological evolution is slower than our cultural evolution. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with anything being discussed.
I'm not sure if you understand the difference between "advanced technology," "advanced society" or "a technologically advanced society." That's a long discussion.
What I would suggest is that we have instinctual needs, particularly instinctual social needs. Technology isn't "bad," but it isn't inherently "good," either. Many of these needs, such as the need to compete or to have a strong social network, are either being repressed or sublimated against things that don't really satisfy these needs. I think that due to misuse of technology and modern economics is leading to the next great plague - a plague of mental illness, particularly depression and ADD/ADHD.
Anonymous
You suggested that evolution is the result of societal behavior. In the case of something like the creation of fire, and cooking food etc, we have physiological changes that take place over tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of years, like the need to chew less, and the smaller intestines. But, generally, our behavioral traits within cultures and societies are the result of biological factors.
If women are dying in childbirth, then the ones that survive to be older without procreating for physiological reasons, are looking after THEIR offspring, making sure THEIR offspring survive, versus the offspring of the young women who already died in childbirth. Therefore over time, the selective process for those who didn't keep breeding, because they were physiologically unable to keep breeding, ensured the children that survived, were from their genetic makeup.
Anonymous
Ok Ok,
Let's agree to disagree for now on the scientific validity of all the myriad hypotheses of macro evolutionary human physiological traits and get back to the original poster's main idea:
Women should be "free" to work their asses off for their capitalist corporate superiors, so they can provide a good life for children that they never see, while their aging mothers should be "free" to care full-time for said children.
Did I get that right?
( Oh, and by the way, the validity of this suggestion was rationalized based on it's "agreement" with the current existent results of natural selection)
Anonymous
Yes, sorry, I did get back on topic. I was just distracted by your assertion regarding menopause.
My on topic comment is at the very top of the page. Women (and men) should be free to create a society where we aren't conforming to the patriarchy of the corporate, consumerist economic/political model that we are now forced to endure.
Chris H
^^^
(Too many people use "Anonymous" - how does anyone know who's referring to who?)
Anyways, no, I'm not saying anyone "should" be anything. Maybe my thoughts are being colored by Fromm's "Escape from Freedom," which I'm re-reading right now, but what is "freedom"? What is "free"? Does that even mean anything?
What I am saying is that I'm really, really shocked that people only see one or two models available when there's actually many models that can be experimented with.
For example, we need to work to eat. I'm even fairly certain that if we no longer needed to work to eat we'd be miserable. What that work is - hunting/gathering, farming, working in an office, teaching, working in a union - varies.
But for human happiness - or at least psychological satisfaction - we need things like stable social networks (real, in person ones, not online ones), the feeling that we impact other people and our environment, etc.
Let's suppose we want to stay technological and work. Why is the "nuclear family" - mom, dad, kids, all in one apartment or home but without extended family or outside community - the norm? It's a miserable, difficult, stressful environment. What if the woman is the superior breadwinner? Who takes care of the kids? It's not good for her or society for her to be home. Does that mean the man must be home then? Why should a family with two strivers suffer for it?
But we then see the "nuclear model" is at fault. There's lots of ways to adapt it, however. How about multifamily living? Extended family living? The person with no "job" - outside paid work - can care for and watch the kids. That's good for seasonal employment, too, which includes everything from farm labor to many types of teaching. Sharing resources is also a way to advance everyone in the group with less effort.
I think the dominant "slavery" we face - social push against our natural urges - is the idea that humans are perfectly happy with just immediate family and temporary bonds. The nuclear family is a corporate convenience. But there's nothing really stopping us from becoming more communal, even in a technological society.
Researcher
Yes, many (including me) are using the anonymous handle, so it's confusing. I only responded to you after you wrote the assertion about menopause. You were initially responding to someone else, so I didn't disagree with your entire comment, only the part on menopause and evolution.
And I agree that there are many models, and we are only being told there's two - working our asses off, versus stay at home mothering. We're also being fed a false dichotomy with regards to our economic model: It's either capitalism; which morphed into corrupt cronyism and exploitation of workers and the third world for nothing but the pursuit of profit OR communism; leading to mass murder, seizure of personal property and religious persecution. And I think there's an inherent connection between the two false dichotomies - economic and feminist. There are many economic or combinations of economic models that could work and provide a fairer and more equitable economic structure, while at the same time, giving us some of what you've suggested such as broader community involvement, ways of expanding our family nucleus, community structures whilst creating more satisfying work environments. I believe it's all interconnected. Capitalism, purposefully sequesters us from each other, in order to pit us against each other, instead of working together, developing creative solutions that benefit everyone. We're living in an unremitting competitive environment, where we're using the most resources, instead of all pitching in together, creating more harmonious and less consumptive economic and community/societal models.
And why would they (the rich, the media, academia, economists, bankers, politicians, or corporate entities) want us to discuss the alternatives, when they want us to believe in the concept of TINA, in regards to every aspect of dysfunction in our society?
Researcher
^^ TINA - There Is No Alternative.
Pages
Add a new comment