
AboutShe can be contacted at cheryl [at] americasfuture [dot] org. Read my other blog. The one that's not obnoxious and self-absorbed! Recent publications"Scary Rise of the 'Sanctimommy'" in The Washington Times "Why Malamud Faded" in Commentary "Blogging Infertility" in The New Atlantis "Outsourcing Childbirth" in The Wall Street Journal "The Painless Peace of Twilight Sleep" in The New Atlantis "The Genius of Old New York" in The Claremont Review of Books "Parenthood At Any Price" in The New Atlantis "Modern Girls and the Moral Revival They Are Leading" in The Washington Times ARTICLE ARCHIVE Links |
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 [F]eminists weren't going to do things the old-fashioned, "political" way. Instead, faced with criticism that the movement was too white and middle-class, many influential feminist thinkers conceded that issues affecting mostly white middle-class women -- such as the corporate glass ceiling or the high cost of day care -- should not significantly concern the feminist movement. Particularly in academic circles, only issues that invoked the "intersectionality" of many overlapping oppressions were deemed worthy. Moreover, that concern must include the whole weight of those oppressions. In other words, since racism hurts black women, feminists must fight not only racist misogyny but racism in any form; not only rape as an instrument of war, but war itself. The National Organization for Women (NOW) eventually amended its mission statement to include interrelated oppressions.As they say, read the whole thing. (See also this excellent discussion.) Hirshman, I think, gets the politics right (a more radical feminism isn't going to win over American voters), but she doesn't seem to get the appeal of the "intersectional" approach for activists. Basically, it helps if the "oppressed" class you are fighting for is actually...well, oppressed. Feminism failed among white, middle-class women precisely because it was so successful; as Hirshman writes, feminism removed the most egregious barriers to women's liberation, leaving in its wake a lot of trivial, albeit frustrating "first-world problems" to be solved, e.g., what's the most equitable way to divide household chores? should I keep a separate bank account? can I be a stay-at-home mom and still be a good role model for my kids? etc., etc. The trouble with focusing on such "problems" is that it comes across as self-indulgent whining. (And as evidenced by this blog, I have a high threshold for self-indulgent whining.) Just take a look at the oceans of ink spilled over the Mommy Wars: e.g., this and this and this and this. Isn't it a little strange to say middle-class women are being ignored when they're all over the media? To many people, these women are feminism, and it's not an attractive picture. Yes, it's annoying that your husband leaves his socks on the floor because he can't be bothered to pick them up, but when you have a maid and a nanny to help, is there really that much to complain about? Especially compared to people who have real problems--like bad schools and poverty and not a single French chaumiere of their own to visit come August. Have some perspective, please! Suffice it to say, the plight of the bourgeois white woman is not a terribly inspiring cause. (Give me Normandy or give me death!) What's more, most of these women's problems aren't amenable to legislative solutions, which makes them difficult for activists to tackle. If you're not going to divorce the guy over dirty socks, what else is there to do? Hirshman would say, "Don't marry a jerk," but how does that help when you've already married the jerk and you like him, dirty socks or no? Labels: gender wars posted by Cheryl # 9:02 AM
Comments:
All points taken, but I do think there is one middle class woman problem which isn't that trifling--namely the disparity between male and female educational attainment in the US (and everywhere, actually), and how that will affect family life in the near future. If women continue to graduate from college and participate in the workforce at increasingly higher rates, this is good, but it will 1) make it harder for women to find equally situated men to partner with (already a problem for minority women) and 2) put more stress on families raising children. This isn't a problem totally removed from legislative (or at least, institutional, remedy). There can be longer maternity leave, for example, or on-site daycare, or more efforts to address men's lagging educational success and labor participation. It's a first world problem, and it's not really about oppression, but it's still a particularly female issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home Archives December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 |