Jessica, I really enjoyed this post but I want to make two points:
1. The Observer is NOT the Guardian's Sunday magazine, it is the oldest Sunday newspaper in the UK which although it happens to now be owned by the Guardian has an entirely separate staff and editor and has always followed its own agenda independent of the Guardian (although admittedly this might change soon). Can you tell I used to work for The Observer, not the Guardian...
2. While I agree there should have been more voices under 35, it is disingenous to say there are none given there is a pretty prominent column written by Anushka Asthana, the paper's deputy news editor who is both under 30 and happy to call herself a feminist.
BUT I think that a lot of women come round to feminism as they get older. My "I'm not a feminist because I don't hate men" friends are now, in their thirties and forties, starting to get the point of it.
It becomes more and more relevant as you get older and want to be paid more, to have kids and have a pension.
I believe in equal rights for women. However, every time I talk to someone who is a self-proclaimed "Feminist", or identifies very strongly with the "movement" (?), they always end up saying something that makes me want to haul off and punch them. I don't have anything more in common with women as a group than I do with men. There is no "common goal" if we can't agree on what it is, past basics like suffrage, education, and access to credit. Most women my age feel like they've been given their rights, so only those with more extreme views have felt the need to identify themselves strongly as feminists. I believe the remaining inequalities will iron themselves out, largely due to changing attitudes among both men and women, and there are just too many angry, hypersensitive nuts on the "Feminist" bus these days for me to feel comfortable riding.
Oh, and can I please strip the "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" shirt or totebag off the next haggard, belligerent woman I see screaming at a Starbucks barista? She's doing no one any favors...
I recently met up with friends from high school after a few years. One friend is going to med school to be a surgeon through the Air Force. She wants to fly, become and astronaut and then go into politics (so far, she's on the path, remarkably enough she's a bit of an over-achiever). She also loves the Twilight series, and I couldn't help but yelp about the anti-feminism rife within the novels.
"Well, I'm NOT a feminist," she said indignantly. "Unless that means one day becoming a crazy old cat lady."
My response, "Like hell you aren't a feminist!" And then I had a minor aneurysm; I don't know, I blacked out for a bit.
The problem is that the term "feminist" holds such negative connotations that many women are afraid of self-identifying as such.
Most disturbingly, however, is the subtle implication that if a woman considers herself a feminist, she will drive men away (possibly in droves). The problems with that concept are too many to list!
Also the batshit craziness of Germaine Greer probably isn't helping the feminism cause in the UK.
She was touring TV stations a few weeks ago ranting about how oppressed the insects on I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here are and how disappointing it was that Gordon Ramsay used commercial marmalade in a recipe...
When this is what the most famous feminist in your country is talking it may make the movement seem a tad irrelevant to you?
@Eeva: They also fail to point out that one of the reasons younger women across the spectrum aren't getting involved in active feminism is that most of the organizations and opportunities for that are based on university campuses which limits their availability to a huge proportion of British women, especially from less wealthy backgrounds.
The ever widening rich-poor gap in the UK isn't helping the feminists of differing views and backgrounds become more cohesive...
I've had many discussions with my fiance about this - how second-wavers are really out of touch with the current movement and that makes it hard to identify with the feminist movement. I think we need a new term or a new understanding of what feminism is - because young women like myself, others on this site, and throughout the world are always going to be reluctant to identify with a movement that is focused primarily on the struggles of straight, white middle-class women. We need a movement which embraces complexity and intersectionality - and which motivates people by looking forward, rather than whining about how far we've fallen.
@susanstohelit: On the other hand, I'm going to find it hard to identify with a "new movement" that takes as its foundational principle that feminists are "whiners."
@susanstohelit: I still don't understand how wanting social, political and economic equality for women is a straight, white, middle-class issue. And I'm not talking about the history of the movement here.
@PilgrimSoul: Thank you for being here. Even when I sleep in and get to work late, I know you'll be on the job, pointing out the complete waste of time that is the "I'm young and therefore 2d wavers can't understand me! I can name an old racist feminist so therefore all feminists over 36 are racists!!!" rant.
This all comes down to the male-dominated society. Us women are expected from birth to view men as our superiors, because they work to put food on the table, they will provide for you and that they *deserve* to have women in their lives. Also, we can't POSSIBLY live without a man in our lives.
Unfortunately, many men have abused this status and many treat women like shit. But when women are done wrong, they're forced to believe that it's THEIR fault for getting the brunt of it.
@Plum-Pie:@Eeva: I think a lot of British women are detached from the realities, because it appears on a superficial level that things are great for women in the UK.
Abortion is legal, contraception is free, maternity leave is paid and available, there is childcare, we had a female Prime Minister etc etc...it isn't til you scratch the surface you realise how tricky it really is. And that hasn't happened for a lot of young women yet...so they don't connect to any concept of feminism til something comes along and is personal enough to spur them into action.
And then they encounter people telling them what level or type of feminist you are or aren't when they just think they are doing a good thing by declaring themself a feminist at all. It can be a bit intimidating and possibly off-putting...(it certainly discouraged me from embracing the term feminist for a long time)
What drives me crazy is research like this [www.guardian.co.uk] (25% of 14 yr old girls who answered a teen mag's sex survey said they had been forced into having sex) and this is not judged in the wider context of the inferior status of women.
Is it because we (society in general)expect 14 yr old girls to have these experiences? Is it because we condone it? Is it because teenage girls condone it?
(I actually found it hard to type inferior status of women then...)
So many young people are active in the anti-poverty debate around globalisation, it's so sad that they can't apply the same level of analysis to the situation between men and women in their own countries, and, as importantly in other countries where just mentioning equal rights can land you in jail.
@Plum-Pie: I was interested though to see that in the wake of that survey and the horrific gang-rape you mentioned earlier, the government is saying sexual harrassment and bullying particular of teenage girls needs to be recognised and addressed in the UK...
@gherkinfiend: This is a little O/T but I think a lot of this comes down to lack of sex education, within familiesm and with children as young as possible re their comprehension. Like, a curious 8 or 9 yr old boy can find violent pron easily on the net, even if that's not what they're looking for and they have no context for what they see.
The parents are thinking 'I'll inform him of the importance of using condoms when he's 14'. Too late - the youngest boy to be involved in a gang rape in the UK was 11. There is a male role-model (or lack of) issue here too.
I agree with your points. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and was shocked by the way women are objectified and portrayed in male culture (Lad's Mags, for example).
There is so much pressure on young women to be 'up for it', and I cannot count the number of times I heard women I know say that, basically, boys will be boys, and it's the job of women to keep them in check.
But I was regarded as a bitter man hating dyke (although I'm partnered with a man), so what do I know?
I'm hung up on the "media's mauling of Amy Winehouse" as an instance of anti-woman behavior or feminist regression. I always read the so-called mauling of Winehouse more as anti-"entitled wealthy drug addict who clearly needs to be in treatment rather than roaming the streets of London" than a feminist regression.
@utensil42: It's when you compare it to how they treat similar men that the sexism shows. Like Russell Brand or Keith Richards or whoever. They're just geezers out for a laff, innit.
@utensil42: Yeah, I also didn't see Amy Winehouse's very personal struggle as on par with the plight of immigrant women in the UK or the low rape conviction rate or some such.
Why don't we just upgrade to a new label beside "Feminist?" So many young women unknowingly define what they believe in clearly feminist terms but balk when you say "You're a feminist." I'm not married to the label and it carries such baggage. Feminism needs a new 'look' and first we need to rename it. I vote Sheras.
@Sophie needs to study...but isn't: No matter what we renamed it, those opposed to the movement would work to convince people that it means "man hater."
@SarahMC: I started "Man Eater" in my head. I wouldn't mind being called that. I picture myself stomping through cities like King Kong with men's legs poking out of my mouth. Tee hee.
@rmj12345: I understand your point but many feminists of color have called themselves something other than "feminists" because white feminists failed to acknowledge their plight e.g. Womanists. Feminists evoke a particular time period and struggle--to me, at least--and not one of global struggle for equality.
Feminists evoke a particular time period and struggle--to me, at least--and not one of global struggle for equality.
is neither necessarily true nor at all helpful. when you abandon the term feminism, you also abandon all sorts of women - including women of colour! - who have written under its mantle. and I think it's just internalizing a right wing critique if we do that.
@PilgrimSoul: I believe "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I'm not so concerned that women are calling themselves feminists. I could care less. What I care about is whether they recognize the need for women's rights and inclusion. Heather Fell, the Olympian had a rather throwback look at gender relations and is not a feminist. But as much as the union-organizing model protests, yes she's doing feminist things and espousing equality. She's doing more than me and I actually call myself a feminist.
I guess it's like when people of African descent in America quibble over being called "Black" or "African American" or even "Person of African Descent." So long as your politics don't resemble Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes, call yourself whatever you want.
@Sophie needs to study...but isn't: yeah, I get you, but if you're already in a place where you believe in this "boogeyman" or "straw" feminism it does suggest you are, at least, presdisposed to the denial of the existence of sexism.
@PilgrimSoul: For some, yes. For others, feminism may just equate to the recent railings of Germaine Greer or Geraldine Ferraro (re: old, white well-off women who may be latent racists). They may fully acknowledge sexism--and work to combat it--but want to disassociate themselves from the latter identity.
@judgingnora: Womanist already means something. There is NO NEED to change the name from "feminism" to something else. People will associate it with "man-hating" simply because of what it advocates, whether it's called "feminism" or or "dolphinism." And how long is it gonna take for the supposed new & improved feminists to publicize what we're all about and what our new name means? Christ, I'm sorry but it's just such a dumb idea. Isn't there something terribly ironic about feminists trying to change the name to something more palatable to the general public (i.e. men)?
@SarahMC: Isn't there something terribly ironic about feminists trying to change the name to something more palatable to the general public (i.e. men)? I think the motivation behind Womanist was to change the lable to something more palatable to women of color re: non-whites. I get that there's a lot of good history behind the feminist label but I can't fault women who work for feminist ideals under a differently named banner because 2nd Wave feminists showed their asses while proudly waving the feminist flag.
@SarahMC: @PilgrimSoul: You know what? I blame the media for even provoking such an asinine discussion of what is or is not feminist when issues surround inequality are shuffled into the shadows. So media, you suck.
@SarahMC: I'm not particularly for changing the name, but I understand why one would think it's a good idea. I don't think it's to cater to men. It's to cater to all of the women who don't think there is a need for the movement anymore. Everyone can think we're man-hating, i don't care. But to think we're obsolete... that's an entirely different matter. So many people I know think that everything i believe in doesn't matter, and that I'm some weirdo trapped in the 60s (and I was born in the 80s). If I here one more woman say that abortion and birth control aren't under attack....
Anyway. What's a womanist? I've never heard it used with a specific meaning. And I have a degree in Women's Studies.
@Sophie needs to study...but isn't: I'm not criticizing Womanists; I understand their movement and their reasons for branching off, so to speak. I can't get behind regular ol' feminists itching for a name change just because they're sick of being accused of being man-hating cat-ladies.
@judgingnora: But how would abandoning the word "feminist" convince women to hop on board the women's equality movement? Like if we stop calling ourselves feminists, heaps of young women will suddenly realize that sexism and misogyny is pervasive?
@judgingnora: From Wikipedia: The word womanism was adapted from Pulitzer Prize winning author, Alice Walker. In her book In Search of Our Mother's Garden: Womanist Prose, Walker used the word to describe the perspective and experiences of "women of color". Although most Womanist scholarship centers on the African American woman's experience, other non-white theorists identify themselves with this term.
@SarahMC: I feel you. This whole "debate" is really to some extent a distraction from the very real issue that some women believe women's rights are oppressive to men (Ha!) or already achieved (Hahahaha!).
"I never liked the word 'feminist' - for me it always meant being against men, whereas I see myself fighting for general equality."
I've spent more time arguing against this notion than I can quantify. But I suppose it's useless to argue for an equal playing field when people cannot acknowledge that the current playing field is not, in fact, equal. Why can't people get it that feminists respect all people enough to hope they'll act with a modicum of integrity?
@pandorasmittens: I think the easiest way to attack them is logically. Assume the playing field is level. That means everyone is being paid exactly the same for being at the same level with the same amount of experience. It also means that everyone has an equal chance at the same promotions. Those two are pretty easy to knock down, just by looking at labor statistics. You really don't have to invoke feminism to show that, in fact, the playing field is not terribly level. It's not even a gender issue really. But it's a good place to start.
I think the problem is, a lot of effort is devoted to defining feminism rather than fighting for the causes that make feminism what it is. It's that diversion of energy that is letting the feminist agenda slip.
@NefariousNewt: Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who believe those statistics to be unfounded. Many of these people believe women get paid less because they are a "bad investment" due to maternity leave. Others believe women "don't ask for the same money and shouldn't receive it". Others invoke the dreaded bootstraps. There will always be foolish arguments to counter hard facts, and unfortunately, most people who hold such opinions so strongly are useless to fight with anyway.
@pandorasmittens: Many women don't ask because they've internalised that they shouldn't. Advice on negotiating for the 21st century here: [www.womendontask.com]
@ejc.wants.pie.now: I can't believe, as a feminist, I just tried to tell another woman how to define herself. I need more caffeine and a cookie, obviously.
But why not? Nerdy student I may be but I love it when my boyfriend looks after me. Likewise, I love looking after him. If it wasn't equal I wouldn't be interested, but since it is I don't see any problem with it. Everyone needs a little looking after sometimes.
This article depressed the living hell out of me...I was particularly disappointed that they didn't feature info or links on how to become more involved in hands on feminism.
@gherkinfiend: I partly think the Graun/Observer does 'death of feminism' articles regularly because they know that "anti-feminists" (for want of a better word) are as happy to read them as feminists are unhappy to read them
Newspapers want readers and they don't mind how they get them.
@Plum-Pie: I think, sadly, they're also partially right. God love Jezebel, but I feel like we have this very fight here nearly every day and very rarely do I feel like feminism came out on top.
@PilgrimSoul: @gherkinfiend: Here is an article from 2007 in which the Graun reduces to sounds bites the opinions of some women who are happy to call themselves feminists:
As I understand it (from comments on the short-lived but sweet 'Observer Woman makes me spit' blog), the women involved had no idea that the interviews were going to be presented in this way.
Bear in mind that in a similar supplement, several pages were given to openly douchebag-y men in the name of social research. (I can'tbe arse to look for the link to that.)
@gherkinfiend: To be honest, I saw that the Guardian was doing a "Women Today" thing and couldn't bring myself to click on it because I knew it'd depress me. You're right, a call to action of sorts would be both more interesting and more relevant. This kind of thing just makes me feel helpless.
@Plum-Pie: That blog was great. The idea of a "women's section" in a newspaper drives me mad anyway, but when it's an supposedly leftie and enlightened newspaper like the Guardian - GAH.
It also means that "women's stories" - articles about girly things like rape and domestic abuse - get filed under Life & Style along with recipes and gift guides.
@PilgrimSoul: During the time I lived in London, I went around to various book stores trying to find a woman studies section, and never ever could. I also tried to find grass roots groups, but only found out about that celebacy group that you have to be invited to join. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places because I thought they didn't have New Age stores either, but they do. I found them during my last week.
@judgingnora: If any US jezzies in London are feeling the need for some feminist reading, may I suggest Silver Moon Books which is on the top floor of Foyles on Charing Cross rd.
@Eeva: but they are not the same paper and they don't have the same views, the Observer supported the war in Iraq for god's sake. Sorry it just annoys me when everyone lumps the two papers together, they don't have the same staff, they don't share a building (although that is about to change) and the observer existed for roughly 100 years before the guardian.
And the reason the observer had a woman's mag is because like or loathe it the Observer has never been leftie or actually particularly enlightened about anything other than foreign reporting.
The Guardian on the other hand has a woman's section, not magazine, and that generally tackles harder subjects.
Plus actually what does Jezebel do but filed celebrity posts and fashion and gossip alongside more serious political and domestic abuse posts?
12/08/08
1. The Observer is NOT the Guardian's Sunday magazine, it is the oldest Sunday newspaper in the UK which although it happens to now be owned by the Guardian has an entirely separate staff and editor and has always followed its own agenda independent of the Guardian (although admittedly this might change soon). Can you tell I used to work for The Observer, not the Guardian...
2. While I agree there should have been more voices under 35, it is disingenous to say there are none given there is a pretty prominent column written by Anushka Asthana, the paper's deputy news editor who is both under 30 and happy to call herself a feminist.
12/08/08
It becomes more and more relevant as you get older and want to be paid more, to have kids and have a pension.
12/08/08
Oh, and can I please strip the "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" shirt or totebag off the next haggard, belligerent woman I see screaming at a Starbucks barista? She's doing no one any favors...
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
"Well, I'm NOT a feminist," she said indignantly. "Unless that means one day becoming a crazy old cat lady."
My response, "Like hell you aren't a feminist!" And then I had a minor aneurysm; I don't know, I blacked out for a bit.
The problem is that the term "feminist" holds such negative connotations that many women are afraid of self-identifying as such.
Most disturbingly, however, is the subtle implication that if a woman considers herself a feminist, she will drive men away (possibly in droves). The problems with that concept are too many to list!
12/08/08
She was touring TV stations a few weeks ago ranting about how oppressed the insects on I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here are and how disappointing it was that Gordon Ramsay used commercial marmalade in a recipe...
When this is what the most famous feminist in your country is talking it may make the movement seem a tad irrelevant to you?
12/08/08
The ever widening rich-poor gap in the UK isn't helping the feminists of differing views and backgrounds become more cohesive...
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
p.s. I'm 26.
12/08/08
Unfortunately, many men have abused this status and many treat women like shit. But when women are done wrong, they're forced to believe that it's THEIR fault for getting the brunt of it.
12/08/08
Abortion is legal, contraception is free, maternity leave is paid and available, there is childcare, we had a female Prime Minister etc etc...it isn't til you scratch the surface you realise how tricky it really is. And that hasn't happened for a lot of young women yet...so they don't connect to any concept of feminism til something comes along and is personal enough to spur them into action.
And then they encounter people telling them what level or type of feminist you are or aren't when they just think they are doing a good thing by declaring themself a feminist at all. It can be a bit intimidating and possibly off-putting...(it certainly discouraged me from embracing the term feminist for a long time)
12/08/08
What drives me crazy is research like this [www.guardian.co.uk] (25% of 14 yr old girls who answered a teen mag's sex survey said they had been forced into having sex) and this is not judged in the wider context of the inferior status of women.
Is it because we (society in general)expect 14 yr old girls to have these experiences? Is it because we condone it? Is it because teenage girls condone it?
(I actually found it hard to type inferior status of women then...)
So many young people are active in the anti-poverty debate around globalisation, it's so sad that they can't apply the same level of analysis to the situation between men and women in their own countries, and, as importantly in other countries where just mentioning equal rights can land you in jail.
12/08/08
[www.guardian.co.uk]
12/08/08
The parents are thinking 'I'll inform him of the importance of using condoms when he's 14'. Too late - the youngest boy to be involved in a gang rape in the UK was 11. There is a male role-model (or lack of) issue here too.
12/08/08
I agree with your points. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and was shocked by the way women are objectified and portrayed in male culture (Lad's Mags, for example).
There is so much pressure on young women to be 'up for it', and I cannot count the number of times I heard women I know say that, basically, boys will be boys, and it's the job of women to keep them in check.
But I was regarded as a bitter man hating dyke (although I'm partnered with a man), so what do I know?
12/08/08
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
@rmj12345: I understand your point but many feminists of color have called themselves something other than "feminists" because white feminists failed to acknowledge their plight e.g. Womanists. Feminists evoke a particular time period and struggle--to me, at least--and not one of global struggle for equality.
12/08/08
Feminists evoke a particular time period and struggle--to me, at least--and not one of global struggle for equality.
is neither necessarily true nor at all helpful. when you abandon the term feminism, you also abandon all sorts of women - including women of colour! - who have written under its mantle. and I think it's just internalizing a right wing critique if we do that.
12/08/08
I guess it's like when people of African descent in America quibble over being called "Black" or "African American" or even "Person of African Descent." So long as your politics don't resemble Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes, call yourself whatever you want.
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
I think the motivation behind Womanist was to change the lable to something more palatable to women of color re: non-whites. I get that there's a lot of good history behind the feminist label but I can't fault women who work for feminist ideals under a differently named banner because 2nd Wave feminists showed their asses while proudly waving the feminist flag.
12/08/08
12/08/08
Anyway. What's a womanist? I've never heard it used with a specific meaning. And I have a degree in Women's Studies.
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
I've spent more time arguing against this notion than I can quantify. But I suppose it's useless to argue for an equal playing field when people cannot acknowledge that the current playing field is not, in fact, equal. Why can't people get it that feminists respect all people enough to hope they'll act with a modicum of integrity?
12/08/08
I think the problem is, a lot of effort is devoted to defining feminism rather than fighting for the causes that make feminism what it is. It's that diversion of energy that is letting the feminist agenda slip.
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
*I* don't want looking after, and I'm just a nerdy grad student.
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
But why not? Nerdy student I may be but I love it when my boyfriend looks after me. Likewise, I love looking after him. If it wasn't equal I wouldn't be interested, but since it is I don't see any problem with it. Everyone needs a little looking after sometimes.
12/08/08
12/08/08
It felt more like an obituary without this.
12/08/08
Newspapers want readers and they don't mind how they get them.
12/08/08
12/08/08
[www.guardian.co.uk]
As I understand it (from comments on the short-lived but sweet 'Observer Woman makes me spit' blog), the women involved had no idea that the interviews were going to be presented in this way.
Bear in mind that in a similar supplement, several pages were given to openly douchebag-y men in the name of social research. (I can'tbe arse to look for the link to that.)
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
It also means that "women's stories" - articles about girly things like rape and domestic abuse - get filed under Life & Style along with recipes and gift guides.
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
12/08/08
And the reason the observer had a woman's mag is because like or loathe it the Observer has never been leftie or actually particularly enlightened about anything other than foreign reporting.
The Guardian on the other hand has a woman's section, not magazine, and that generally tackles harder subjects.
Plus actually what does Jezebel do but filed celebrity posts and fashion and gossip alongside more serious political and domestic abuse posts?