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 51 - 60 of 68
Page 6 of 7
Anonymous
I agree with the author. Feminism isn't quite the success that it's touted, especially in the sense that the author suggests, with the complete acquiescence of women to the patriarchal, corporate consumerist model.
Women may have achieved the vote, but how much does the vote matter, since throughout history, voting has been an illusory ploy to keep the rabble in line, and the masses subservient to the elite and rich? The vote, itself is a joke, since it's a token at best. A con at worst.
Women may be now working in previously male dominated fields, but it's not an achievement, if it advances society in the wrong direction, towards shallow consumerism and capitalism, and families forced to pull in two incomes, versus the one income that was sufficient during the 50's and 60's.
Women may have achieved the ability to go to war and serve in the military, but it's a non-achievement since the goal of murdering other human beings for the state and for profit, is against women's interests as well as morally unjustifiable.
Feminism, post mid 20th century achieved very little, except to serve the shallow egos of people like Steinhem and Co.; who wanted to mingle with the rich and famous, and lecture other white, middle class women on how to compete with men, in an iniquitous society that they had no intention of reforming. They just wanted a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
What has conforming to the white, male dominated, war ridden, corrupt and amoral world, achieved for the world's women? It's been against our own interests, and that of the entire human race, to try and emulate men, take on their values, consumption and corporate careers. We've been abandoning or tamping down our innate values, including empathy, compassion and cooperation, replacing them with male values and male characteristics like ambition, ruthlessness and domination, in order to jockey for perceived power within the corporate or political landscape. And by doing that, all we've done is hand men more power and legitimacy, much in the same way voting gives those in power legitimacy to carry on with their illegitimate and criminal acts, against the will of the majority.
If we ever want real reform, we all have to start non conforming.
Anonymous
So true! Entering into work which promotes consumerism and war is counter to liberation -- for anybody. Most of us give up most of our lives to work that enriches just a few and takes so much time and creates so much stress, when coupled with child-rearing, that many of us are too tired to even think very deeply about the direction our countries are going in and vote intelligently, let alone engage in political leadership, which is mostly co-opted by the rich. Having the vote is ineffective if you don't have any candidates that you want to support and who have any chance of winning.
That "conformity" is encouraged by employers, especially if you happen to work for government. In Canada, if you work for Parks Canada, you are not allowed to even criticize the fact that the government is downsizing you -- until you lose your job, that is. And I know from experience in fields outside government, that people are afraid to voice public opinions that may be unpopular for fear of losing their jobs. Non-conformity implies that you will need to have a way to make a living that is outside someone else's control. I know that's possible, but difficult. I think anyone proposing solutions or suggestions for that would do a great service if they made them publicly available.
I am so tired of a world skewed by values that glorify violence and exploitation of the majority for the power-hungry and the filthy rich. I am so tired of our power being confined to what choices of things we can buy. I want our wealth to go to fix the health of the planet and its people -- feed and clothe everyone and give them peace and liberty. We don't need more jobs; we don't need more money; we don't even need more food -- we just need more compassion and leaders with the willingness to leave war and commerce and bring health to our Earth.
Anonymous
A warning from a Feminist:
Men are not stupid. They are not going to continue to take the blame for things which are more and more obviously the fault of women and that women do to themselves and each other out of their own conscious will.
Until, women take ownership, and willingly share in the blame and responsibility for their own vile, violent and disgusting tendencies, nothing will change.
Anonymous
Can you be specific as to what things women are doing that men take the blame for? Seems all you're doing is offering stupid men a rationale to get back at women with violence over reasons that don't exist. Some feminist you are, cop.
Anonymous
I wrote this after the Slaughter article went viral. As an objector to our current political economy, I caught flack from almost every side of the debate. Like many of Adbuster's readership, I believe we have to look at hegemony generally if we are to actually challenge patriarchy.
http://corralledinsanity.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/challenging-it-all-feminism-collectivism-and-the-dated-workplace/
-josh brewer
corralledinsanity.wordpress.com
Anonymous
Clinton is the third female secretary of state.
this column bro...
by the army of Sheila Heti publicists. Heti is not a "breakout" writer, nor is she a feminist writer. She has, however, gotten some pretty high-profile bad reviews by reviewers obviously given no choice but to review by boss editors who toe the line of the publishing houses and media bosses. Heti is just like the majority who have gotten us into this mess--another one who "wants to have it all" caring nothing for anyone outside her privileged circle.
And this piece doesn't do much for feminism either. Written by someone who aspires to the same thing as those she criticizes--writerly stardom and the riches that go with it.
hopages
Let's set "feminism" aside and try "humanism:" that way we can (men and women) work together against the status quo, against consumerism and all the other "isms" that stand in the way of a fair, equitable and free human race that respects the earth and all parts of itself. Arguing about whose the greatest failure as a feminist or whether 1970's feminism is appropriate in the 21st Century just gets everyone nowhere. Most people work at something - or want to work at something. We need an approach which rewards everyone's work, even if that means bringing the top wage earners down and bringing the lower wage earners up. In our brave new world we are still going to eat, probably want a roof over our heads, education (and education for our children), health care and much much more. Many people have moved on from '70's feminism to a more balanced view of changing society, not just to accommodate women in a "men's world" to seeking a blending of the role all people play in creating and re-creating a better society.
Side note: the nuclear family (mom, dad, kids) didn't even exist prior to the "industrial revolution" (more or less) and "consumerism" proping up industry: extended families provided for and helped each other - but you don't have "good" consumers with that type of arrangement. Family is what you create among the people you care for and who care for you, emotionally and materially.
Genesis
Saved as a favorite, I really like your blog!
Have a look at my weblog ... highwaisted jean shorts
Anonymous
Ok. Apparently, you're stuck in 70's feminism (2nd wave).
Try and get up to date.
Men can be feminists too. Feminism is about equality, it does not value women over men, Patriarchy also hurts men.
Changing feminism to "humanism" is just a way to ignore the problem.
Fighting patriarchy together is part of re-creating a better society.
Pages
Add a new comment