For the Feminist Tea Party
October 6, 2010
Let’s reconvene and talk susan faludi’s front page harper’s article and the generational divide. With supplemental readings.
Electras Talk Back-Feministing’s response (two editors are quoted-one of whom is misquoted-in Faludi’s article)
The Faludi article in full (because who subscribes to Harper’s?)
Advertisement
2 Comments
leave one →
Faludi’s article is an important one, if only to allow some air and space to enter this increasingly shrill and mean-spirited debate (a sign of the times, perhaps?). I was terribly dismayed to read the “mama grizzly” response of Terry O’Neill’s camp to their suspiciously slim victory at the NOW convention – mesdames, it is not about gratitude or a legacy, for clearly what is the legacy? It is not a llaundry list of past victories – those are missions accomplished, not work to be carried forward. Hilary Clinton was clearly not the ideal feminist candidate – and frankly, a strong case could be made for Barack Obama’s bearing that honor instead.
Ritual matricide is exactly the point here – grappling with that fundamental archetype on a real personal level is part of every person’s struggle into adulthood. Obviously this struggle is particularly charged among women. This classical allusion is the best framework for this conversation, and perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind, when we talk with our sisters and mothers and daughters about feminism, past and future. For what we are talking about is the notion that sexuality and power are irrevocably entwined, that women are emblematic of that relationship, and that we have never been able to negotiate the fulfillment of that responsibility in the arena of public power. The anger of each succeeding generation of women toward their mothers speaks to our ongoing failure to articulate an expression of personal power for women in society that assumes our sexuality but is not encumbent on our sexuality. The generation that is able to envision that will have indeed secured a legacy worth fighting for.
I like that you brought up the inextricable connection between sex and power in women that is, if not inherent, than fairly universally ascribed and something that we all feel the push of.
Sex seems to be the theater for this old guard/new wave battle, re: xx/jezebel “yours is false feminism for drunk sluts/you’re just a bunch of second-wave haters.” Our sexuality, and the way we choose to assert it (I want to say flaunt, if only flaunt didn’t carry such bad connotations), seems to really stick in the maw of older feminists, and serves as the example that ‘proves’ our immaturity, our frivolousness, and our incapability of taking the torch (making the bearers pull it back and hold it tight).
Krystal Ball’s HuffPo article raised a point about why our sexual lives are such a big goddamn deal to the previous generation (let’s just call them the Ma’s).
When they were making their push for equality, especially in the workplace, their sexuality was a hinderance–something to be repressed so they could be seen as as tough as men. I’m going to play the armchair psychologist and say that wormed its way into their heads, and they began to equate being sexual with accepting a submissive, secondary role, which at the time, it might have.
However, we aren’t willing to compromise our sexualities, and one of our biggest fights is to embody and create the idea that we can be both openly sexual and taken seriously. We demand it and will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tells us we can’t have it.
The Ma’s see our sexuality as a weakness, and we see it as a reclamation.