women's movement

A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s

mandy — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:00:00 +0000

Stephanie Coontz has taken on a project of mythical proportions with her latest work, A Strange Stirring, an examination of the impact Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique had on American society and culture in the 1960s. A Strange Stirring looks at both the book’s message to women during this stifling time and investigates the life of Friedan herself, giving the author credit for her truly remarkable work while laying bare some of the controversies surrounding the groundbreaking work.

Coontz has put together a comprehensive picture of what life was like for women in America during the 1950s and '60s. Aside from reading Friedan's book, her research includes books and articles from the same time period to investigate the sociology of American society. She also interviewed women with regard to their experience of Friedan’s book. This approach fills in the details with political, legal, social, cultural, and emotional issues to create an intricate view. Anyone born in the 1970s or later will find themselves immersed in the Mad Men-like world of middle class, suburban housewives.

In an era when women’s lives were predetermined, Friedan’s voice was one of hope and redemption. Women who had been marginalized, demonized, and used to prop up their husbands and children (but only if they did it ‘right') discovered they were not alone in their frustration and despair. Coontz gives credit where it is due, while also making sure to remind the reader that Friedan was not singlehandedly responsible for the birth of the women’s liberation movement.

A Strange Stirring is thoughtful and diligent in its research. Educational and incredibly illustrative of this time period in American history, I can’t imagine a better study of this pivotal work, and truly appreciate its honesty, clarity, and well-rounded approach.

Written by: Kari O’Driscoll, February 20th 2011

Feminist Agendas and Democracy in Latin America

admin — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:01:00 +0000

Edited by Jane S. Jaquette

Duke University Press

The feminist experience of women in Latin America is not one that is often written about or discussed. Many discussions about politics in Latin America leave feminism out, as discussions of feminism in general are often limited to the U.S. and Europe. Perhaps it is for this reason that I immediately warmed to Feminist Agendas and Democracy in Latin America, but it was the content and style that kept me reading.

This book is meant to analyze and compare the structure of feminist movements in Latin American countries that have become democratic in recent history. The book is broken down into three sections: Feminism and the State, Legal Strategies and Democratic Institutions, and International and Cross-Border Activism. In these sections, each chapter is written by women with firsthand experience and/or academic expertise in the feminist or women’s movement in a particular country or region. The book begins and ends with a chapter by the book’s editor, Jane Jaquette, who pulls the pieces together to give a sense of the bigger picture.

What I liked most about Feminist Agendas and Democracy in Latin America, particularly when compared to others I’ve read about the topic, is that it’s easy for the reader to tell that the women who wrote each chapter are experts in what they’re writing about. Some of them even slip in firsthand reactions to the events they mention, which gives the reader reassurance that this isn’t just the usual “outside looking in” account of history. For example, when Gioconda Espina discusses the possibility of creating new alliances in Venezuela with other organizations, she is giving a glimpse into her actual experience working with these other groups, which provides a greater level of authenticity.

It was also great to see the focus on what the future might bring. The fact is that this is a very recent history; indeed, a lot of the countries highlighted in this book were in the middle of major changes when the chapters were written, leaving the picture still incomplete. Because of that, it was good to have the writers try to piece the puzzle together.

The book is not perfect, however. I found that the focus on countries with more recent shifts to democracy such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela made for a narrow view of Latin America. With the vast number of countries, it’s disappointing to only see the book focus on a handful. Brazil and Argentina, for instance, had a chapter dedicated to each country and then another comparing the two, meaning that three out of ten chapters focused only on two countries. It would be interesting to examine the feminist movements in other Latin American countries, particularly those in the Caribbean and Central America.

I can see Feminist Agendas and Democracy in Latin America being used as a text in college courses about global feminism, Latin America, or emerging democracies around the world. It is an academic text at its core and not meant for light beach reading unless you have a particular interest in this subject matter, as I admittedly do. That said, the book was surprisingly easy to read and digest, and not at all the boring academic text I expected.

I would be happy to check out another attempt by Jaquette, perhaps providing a follow-up to the countries she has already covered and expanding to other Latin American countries in flux. I am confident she would provide a volume of work as captivating as this, if not more so.

Written by: frau sally benz, December 19th 2009

Success and Solitude: Feminist Organizations Fifty Years After The Feminine Mystique

admin — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:07:00 +0000

By Sarah Maxwell

University Press of America, Inc.

Much ado has been made over the fact that an increasing number of women do not identify themselves with the feminist movement, but there has been little consensus over why this is so. Why, in an era where girls grow up being told “you can be anything you want to be,” do many women reject affiliation with feminism? Author Sarah Maxwell attempts to answer this question in Success and Solitude: Feminist Organizations Fifty Years After The Feminine Mystique. In a meticulously researched book, Maxwell discusses the changing identity of the feminist movement by tracing the identity and numbers of women who have joined feminist organizations since Betty Friedman published The Feminine Mystique in 1963. Specifically, she explores the ways in which conflicting demands upon women have shifted their political allegiances and social identifications, which in turn has shifted the face of feminism itself.

Maxwell points to changes in access to education, professional opportunities, and politics as reasons for why the feminist movement’s numbers have dwindled. With the playing field leveled by increased opportunities for women, Maxwell reasons, the amount of inequality women perceive has drastically declined, even though actual inequalities may be just as present. With lower levels of inequality perceived, Success and Solitude asserts that fewer women feel a need to join feminist organizations or support their mission. Maxwell leaves it up to the reader to decide if this is good or detrimental. Success and Solitude, an academic text, was made more enjoyable by Maxwell’s careful efforts to make her research more than just facts and figures to the reader. However, Maxwell spends too much time defining the terms she uses in her research, and not enough time actually discussing how these terms play out in real women’s lives. This means that, all too frequently, Maxwell belabors the point she is trying to make, without ever making it at all. The real gems in Maxwell’s writing come in the latter part of the book, when she begins to piece together her arguments in an articulate and authoritative manner. It is a shame that just as she seems to be gathering steam in Success and Solitude, the book reaches its end.

Like any good researcher, Maxwell steers clear of giving her personal opinion and does not try to lead the reader to a particular conclusion. Therefore, the reader is left to answer Maxwell’s most pressing question: does the success of American women necessarily lead to an abandonment of women’s rights organizations? Maxwell’s research suggests that the answer to this question may be more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no.”

Written by: Gwen Emmons, August 7th 2009

The Modern Girl Around the World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization

admin — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:40:00 +0000

Edited by Alys Eve Weinbaum, Lynn M. Thomas, Priti Ramamurthy, Uta G. Poiger, Modeleine Yue Dong, Tani E. Barlow

Duke University Press

The propagated image of the "modern woman" is usually White and lithely strutting the streets of New York or Paris. Hollywood films as well as vintage prints in hip clothing boutiques give us the familiar image of a short-cropped brunette in smart dress. The Modern Girl Around the World Research Group (comprised by the book's editors) has collected a group of essays suggesting that this fabulous 1920’s to 1930’s woman was an international phenomenon, and not merely a Western emulation. What we know as "flappers" were also labeled garconnes, moga, modeng xiaojie, kallege ladki, schoolgirls, vamps, and neue Frauen. In The Modern Girl Around the World: Consumption, Modernity, and Globalization, "girls" are defined as "young women with the wherewithal and desire to define themselves in excess of conventional female roles and as transgressive of national, imperial, and racial boundaries." Here, we can understand the modern girl not only as a consumer or mannequin, but rather a woman challenging convention and limitations.

Although The Modern Girl Around the World is published by an academic press, it is wonderfully accessible, and should be of interest to anyone interested in sociology, fashion, sexuality, and the development of the public image of women. There are sixteen essays besides the Research Group's own chapter on methodology. Geographically, the essays look at France, South Africa, India, China, and beyond. Personally, my favorite essays are Liz Conor's "Blackfella Missus Too Much Proud: Techniques of Appearing, Femininity and Race in Australian Modernity" and Kathy Peiss' "Girls Lean Back Everywhere," but all the essays have something valuable to say. Overall, the authors demonstrate that modernity is not a Western creation with foreign copycats, but rather a simultaneous movement.

From a practical point of view, this is a Women's Studies student or professor’s dream. Finding all of these essays in one compilation and including an extensive bibliography opens up the possibilities for transnational study without relying on an archive. For readers who seek an in-depth history of these movements, it is wise to note that The Modern Girl Around the World focuses instead on commodity and cultural flows as they occur. This is not a study of underground political movements, but rather women pushing the public and visible limits of agency.

It’s a shame that a book on image only has pictures in black and white, but I’m so grateful that a compilation like this finds a publisher at all. As a woman, teacher, and reader, I find The Modern Girl Around the World to be interesting and provocative. We live in a global world, and this compilation recognizes transnational trends. Points of disagreements within the essays and overall project only instigate productive dialogue.

Written by: Claire Burrows, April 4th 2009

Gender and Class in the Egyptian Women’s Movement, 1925-1939: Changing Perspectives

admin — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:54:00 +0000

By Cathlyn Mariscotti

Syracuse University Press

Gender and Class reads like the last reference book in a lengthy series about the Egyptian women’s movement. I came to this review ready to learn something about a time in history that most people probably know very little about. I came away learning only a few ‘vocab’ words from the glossary.

Cathlyn Mariscotti’s book reads more like a thesis essay reflecting on a scholarly course the audience has taken rather than a text written for the general reader. Every fact Mariscotti references relies heavily on other texts to get her point across. The main comparison and crux of the book is that Western feminism is extremely bourgeois and did not entirely help lower class women in Egyptian, such as the peasant fellahin.

This seemed to be an interesting idea at first mention, but after reading on, the reader realizes Mariscotti has laid all of her cards down on the table too early in revealing her argument, and all within the first twenty pages. This made for rather tedious reading of the rest of the book.

The text is a general criticism of the feminist movement as a whole, including Global North countries, such as the United States, Mariscotti does not make learning about the Egyptian women’s plight with this issue easy or entertaining to read. I was so overwhelmed by snippets of facts and parentheses telling me which books I could find and read about these facts; sadly I absorbed next to nothing about this largely overlooked period of history. In the end, all I learned about the Egyptian women’s movement was that I need to seek out other books to do so.

Written by: Jen Klee, March 4th 2009

Feminist Media Reconsidered

admin — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:12:00 +0000

Interview with Jessica Hoffmann, Daria Yudacufski

Some of the most incisive feminist analysis today is being published in the groundbreaking make/shift magazine. Started by three activists – Jessica Hoffmann, Daria Yudacufski, and Stephanie Abraham, who first worked together as founders and editors of the feminist zine LOUDmouth – make/shift is run by an editorial/publishing collective committed to antiracist, transnational, and queer perspectives. Together, the collective publishes “journalism, critical analysis, and visual and text art that documents contemporary feminist culture and action.”

Elevate Difference recently caught up with Jessica Hoffmann and Daria Yudacufski to learn about the meaning behind the magazine’s name, social justice-oriented feminism, and Hoffman’s recent call to action, “An Open Letter to White Feminists,” that lit up the blogosphere.

What is the significance of the magazine's title, make/shift?

Daria Yudacufski & Jessica Hoffmann: It’s about making – making media, making change, making communities, making movements, making art, and making shifts – shifting power, shifting paradigms, shifting society. And it’s about doing it with what you’ve got, in a non-institutional, resourceful, do-it-yourself makeshift way.

**What are the origins of make/shift? When did the idea first arise and how did you manifest it into the magazine we see today? **

Daria: Stephanie Abraham and I founded a feminist zine called LOUDmouth through the Women’s Resource Center at California State University, Los Angeles, where I used to work. Jessica, although not affiliated with the university, contributed to the zine and was an editor as well. As the three of us worked together, we realized that it would be great to do an independent version of the magazine on a larger, national scale. So, based on our experience with LOUDmouth and Jessica’s experience writing and editing for other magazines and books, we realized that we had the energy and ability to make it happen. After about a year of meetings and conversations and brainstorming with each other and with friends, we were able to turn our idea into a reality.

Many discussions about feminism include reflection on one very basic question: “What is feminism?” How does make/shift define feminism?

Jessica: First, we really don’t see feminism as a singular thing with one definition. There have always been multiple feminisms, and _make/shift _is most interested in and excited about the feminisms that look at how systems of power work, how people and communities collectively resist, and creative alternatives to oppression.

What was your earliest understanding of feminism, and what sparked your own consciousness as feminist activists?

Jessica: My earliest understanding of feminism was that it was sexism against men. I thought it was a negative and hateful thing, which is obviously something I learned from anti-feminist mainstream culture. From a very young age, I had been interested in social justice and peace work, and it took a while for me to see that feminism was not hateful, but was actually a lens through which I could see that all of these issues I cared about – from war to the environment to poverty – were affected by the same oppressive types of power. Feminism was amazing in showing me how to look at those things in structural ways, as well as in personal ways.

Daria: My earliest understanding was really through a women’s rights perspective, and the very basic idea that women and men should be equal. Growing up in Monterey, California in, like, 1981, I was about ten years old and out for a walk with a friend. We came across a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). I was really inspired by all of these people coming together for something which seemed so obvious and necessary. It was at that point that I put an “ERA Yes!” bumper sticker on my elementary school notebook. However, my thoughts around feminism have evolved immensely since then, and for me, feminism is much more about larger social justice issues than women’s issues specifically.

The range of pieces in make/shift is quite striking. The content moves from personal essays to critical analysis to visual and textual art, and even a crossword puzzle! What led you to assemble the magazine in such a way, and was it a response to content you saw lacking in other feminist publications?

Jessica & Daria: This was very intentional. Part of believing that feminisms are plural is understanding that feminisms happen in many different voices and forms. In our mission of documenting contemporary feminisms, it is essential to represent as wide a range of voices and forms as possible. We know that this flies in the face of conventional magazine-making wisdom, which suggests that you should have a strong, single cohesive voice throughout the magazine, but we believe it is going to take many approaches and many voices to make change, and we want make/shift to reflect that.

Jessica: And there are very few venues that publish literary fiction that is formally inventive and politicized. I definitely wanted to make space for that in make/shift.

Why a print magazine at this particular time? As you know, there is discussion about the “relevancy” of print versus online media, and these are risky times for D.I.Y. projects, as many magazines have shut down due to financial issues. What is your opinion about the place of print media – especially social justice publications like make/shift – in our culture today?

Daria: Well, I think we both love print and the tangible quality of magazines. It feels so much more personal and intimate and just has such a great impact on me as a reader.

Jessica: We definitely thought about the questions of print vs. online in terms of environmental impact and financial costs and decided to go ahead with a small-scale print publication for a few reasons. As Daria said, we love magazines. I read a lot online, but there are some things that I really want to read in print, like fiction, long-form essays. There are still accessibility issues around the Internet, and while there’s a lot of amazing social justice media happening online, there are relatively few print outlets doing that work, so we thought we’d jump in.

What do your four columnists (Randa Jarrar, Erin Aubry Kaplan, Nomy Lamm, and Mattilda aka Matt Bernstein Sycamore) collectively bring to the magazine?

Daria & Jessica: We sat down and brainstormed who our dream columnists would be, and they were our first choices, and we were excited that they all agreed to participate. They bring an amazing array of ideas and perspectives in their beautiful and thoughtful writing. And we love working with them!

As you note, make/shift is created by “an editorial collective committed to antiracist, transnational, and queer perspectives.” Will you explain how your commitment to these perspectives informs your editorial decision-making process?

Jessica & Daria: Those are the perspectives that we have, and so, every single decision we make is informed by those perspectives. It’s quite simple really. Basically, we’re conscious of all of these issues in every aspect of making the magazine, from how we relate to each other to determining the magazine content to editing in a collaborative way.

**There has been much discussion among feminists about who the feminist movement truly serves. This includes a lot of division and soul-searching lately, as recent discussions about white feminist privilege and women of color marginalization have pushed many prominent white, feminist bloggers, authors, and publishers to speak more publicly about white privilege in the movement.

Jessica, you also wrote an inspiring and widely discussed piece in the third issue of make/shift (“On Prisons, Borders, Safety, and Privilege: An Open Letter to White Feminists”) that deftly examines these issues and more. Will you speak about the origins of that piece, the response you’ve gotten since then, and where you hope the discussion ultimately brings the movement?**

Daria: These discussions have led to a lot of internal conversations and dialogues about feminism and white privilege. There has been a lot of really scary and hurtful stuff put out there by mainstream white feminists, and we have talked a lot as a collective about whether feminism is even the appropriate framework for our magazine. A big part of why we exist as a magazine is because mainstream feminism has totally excluded or marginalized more radical voices, women of color, trans voices, etc., and at the same time, social justice-oriented media often excludes gendered perspectives. I feel like, if we were to stop using feminism as a framework, then we’d let those dominant voices win.

Jessica: These discussions around white privilege in feminism are not new, of course. There have always been skin- and/or class-privileged feminists who have failed to understand or reckon with their privilege and who have tried to lead a movement that centers their needs – a movement that should never have had a center or leaders to begin with. I mean, to get back to the plural-feminisms thing, I don’t even think it’s useful to imagine feminism as a single movement. And while there have always been liberal/mainstream feminists with privilege who have tried to push a movement that would address their needs while leaving larger power structures fundamentally unchallenged, there have also always been feminists with more radical takes. I came to feminism via bell hooks and Angela Davis. The first feminist texts I read were by radical women of color who insisted on an intersectional analysis and offered scathing critiques of white-led liberal feminisms. Those are the feminisms that are inspiring and seem useful to me.

In terms of the open letter I wrote, in some ways it seemed like what I had to say there was really obvious and almost didn’t need saying (and much of it had already been said by amazing radical feminists of color, like brownfemipower and folks from Incite!). But it seemed like there were these privileged feminists who kept saying they had an “intersectional” analysis, or were antiracist or whatever, yet they kept repeating these old habits of movement-making that centered privileged “women’s” needs. I had this feeling that maybe it was worth pointing out some specific ways I was seeing racism and white privilege playing out within liberal/white feminism, while also acknowledging my own experiences of privilege and how that had kept me, at different times in my life, from seeing the way power was really working – to note how problematic it is for people who are not seeing in those ways to be at the center of, or leading, feminist action. Also, I wanted to call out liberalism and strongly say that liberal feminism is a really different thing from radical, social justice-oriented feminism.

I’m not yet totally sure what to make of the responses to it. In some ways I’ve been surprised at how hard people who say they believe in social change want to hold on to privilege, and how unaware they seem to be of what they’re doing. It almost makes me feel naïve for thinking that anyone who believes in liberal/assimilationist approaches might possibly get something out of the article.

At the same time, it’s been heartening to get positive feedback from folks who did feel like they got something out of it, so… I dunno. I take this shit seriously, you know? I really want to believe that there are lots of people who really want to see societies work differently, power shared differently, and who are willing to get honest and uncomfortable and emotional and serious (and playful and loving, too!) in collaborating together to make that happen. I want to hope that. And I think the politics of privilege that call themselves feminism are just a really sad, sorry monster-wave trying to wash away that hope. I guess I was trying to write against that, to hope aloud for something better.

What feminist activists do make/shift admire? To borrow from your mission, who do you feel is best “resisting and creating alternatives to systematic oppression” right now?

Jessica & Daria: The contributors and the people and projects that we feature in the magazine, like brownfemipower, Ubuntu, Incite!, Mia Mingus, Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, WelfareQUEENS, Young Women’s Empowerment Project – really everyone who has contributed to or been featured in the magazine, but there are so many more. You’ll just have to keep reading the magazine to find out who they are!

What’s next for make/shift?

Daria & Jessica: It’s hard to believe, but we’re almost done with issue four! It’ll be out in September and will include a spread on cooperative economics; a selection of letters between radical women of color, guest edited by Alexis Pauline Gumbs; a beautiful personal essay called “River” by a writer named Davka that you just have to read; a really wonderful photo essay by an artist named O.K. Riley about young women and sexuality; and so much more!

Photo Credit (Daria - left and Jessica - right): Giuliana Maresca

Written by: Ellen Papazian, July 29th 2008

Sex in Revolution: Gender, Politics, and Power in Modern Mexico

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:22:00 +0000

Edited by Jocelyn Olcott, Mary Kay Vaughan, Gabriela Cano

Duke University Press

Mary Kay Vaughn, in her introduction to Sex in Revolution: Gender, Politics, and Power in Modern Mexico, asserts that while paternalism, Catholicism, Victorian morals and patriarchy experienced a fierce health before, during and after the Mexican Revolution, the women’s movement, while slow, was undeniable and, ultimately, irreversible. This book’s purpose, then, is to crack the monolith of rhetoric (verbal, literary and visual) that women have had little voice or agency within the confines of the social-political space and place known as Mexico in the post revolution.

While rampant machismo threatened the health of feminist progression, these essays point to significant fissures that fractured the surface of such patriarchy as the dominant social practice. The contributing authors are quick to note that there were subversive performances occurring at multiple sites. Some actions were bolder than others but all of them comprised an undeniable collection of evidence supporting a vigorous women’s movement. However, it is also significant to note that this movement was not singular in motive: some activism was in service to right-wing politics and bringing back to center the conservatism of religious (primarily, Catholic) practices. This anthology, thus, is interested in naming, when and where possible, certain actions as feminist. Yet, it also recognizes that not all activism by women was necessarily feminist in ideal.

Each of the essays explores a collection of evidence primarily through textual analysis of newspapers, films, magazines, public records and photographs. The ethnographic interview is also used to gather qualitative transcripts for analysis. In these pages, expect to encounter diverse and rich sites of inquiry: transgendered performances, las pelonas (the flappers of Mexico), filmic depictions of indigenous ideals and femininity, divorce, education, labor politics, the process of adoption, Catholic women’s activism and grassroots organizing.

There are few popular culture artifacts in the U.S. that depict Mexican women as brave, courageous, and willful agents. Indeed, there are many more reinforcements of the Mexican female as subservient (the maid), as hyper-sexualized (the whore), or as over pious (the virgin). These sorts of historical and contemporary images represent only part of a complex reality for Mexican women. As a feminist project, this collection of essays credits women of the post revolution as agents of the Modern state capable of challenging dominant patriarchal practices with significant performances resistant to traditional femininity. This text is well written, interesting, and a necessary read for understanding further a significant era in Modern Mexican history. It is an enlightening addition to any women’s studies reading list (undergraduate or graduate) and to any special topics course dealing with Mexican history, cultural identity or popular culture. This book is scholarly in tone, but is very accessible.

Written by: Denise Menchaca, April 4th 2007