Feminisms

GWS 8000 – Critical Perspectives on Gender

January 29, 2019

Feminism acknowledges and explores the ways in which men and women are socially gendered, and how our institutions and relationships express and influence this gender dynamic which historically oppresses the female sex. How power and oppression should be studied and rectified, however, is debated widely among those who willingly (or sometimes unwillingly) take on the label of “feminist.” Much like political ideologies, differing feminist philosophical groups are divided into what we know as “feminisims.” During the early Second Wave of feminism, women began speaking out against the mainstream voices who seemingly focused exclusively on middle-class white women’s issues. This week’s readings highlight a few of these prominent writers and activists.

On the radical side of Second Wave feminism, the “Redstockings Manifesto” claims to be free of “revolutionary or reformist” goals yet reads as a Marxist inspired statement of how the group is defined. The language that is used throughout the document, as well as their choice in name, certainly seem inspired by Marxist revolutionary ideology.  The Redstockings declare that all women, regardless of race or class, must unify for total liberation from male oppression, which exists to benefit all men, and claim that all other forms of oppression are “extensions of male supremacy,” which can only be dispelled once women are liberated. In response to some liberal feminist groups that call for women to have the same rights and opportunities as men, thereby anticipating a society where women can assimilate into a male-dominated system, the Redstockings firmly believe that is it not up to women to change, but the responsibility lies with men to give up their patriarchal ways.

At the same time, graduate student Kate Millett was determined to trace the roots of the oppression that her gender faced. Millett’s Ph.D. dissertation would later become the classic text, Sexual Politics. Chapter 2, “Theory of Sexual Politics,” explains Millett’s belief that patriarchy is politics, defined as, “power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another.” (23) She uses examples of male dominance in both personal relationships between men and women in the home and the workplace, in religious storytelling, as well as cultural norms, such as jokes about “wife beating.” Millett makes a strong argument that this system if power is thoroughly entrenched, and only by bringing it into public consciousness can we shake its foundation.

Although Kate Millett was one of the most famous feminist leaders in the early days of the movement, she was ostracized by mainstream feminism when it was discovered that she identified as bisexual. Many in the movement, such as Betty Friedan, believed that any non-heterosexual elements would derail feminism’s agenda, and referred to lesbian presence as “The Lavender Menace.” Adrienne Rich addressed the hostility towards, and exclusion of, lesbian feminists in “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Rich’s writing was obviously radical but forced people to question the authenticity of heterosexuality as a “default,” or “normal” position. “Feminist theory,” she writes, “can no longer afford merely to voice a toleration of lesbianism as an alternative life-style.” (632) Rich argues that heterosexuality is an institution itself that is imposed on society, removing the choice of sexuality from women. She raises the question, “why did the survival of the species becomes completely intertwined with emotional/erotic relationships?” and “why was it necessary to enforce women’s total emotional erotic loyalty and subservience to men?” (637) She outlines the ways in which not only childhood socialization influences our heterosexuality, but in power structures like the workplace where it is beneficial to act in heterosexual ways and tolerate male sexual power and harassment. Rich also introduces her theory of the “lesbian continuum” as a way of explaining the types of relationships women can and do have with each other. Woman to woman relationships can exist on a continuum of emotional closeness, with or without erotic pleasure as a component. If societal conditioning has removed women’s choices in favor of heterosexuality, then it is impossible to know what the “normal” condition truly is.

Lesbianism, along with race and class identity, were the primary focus of the Combahee River Collective. Their Statement in 1977 was one of the first to identify what is commonly known today as intersectionality. They declare that feminist movements cannot ignore women who also “struggle against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression,” and that they see their “particular task (as) the development of integrated analysis and practice based on the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking.” (1) The CRC argued that black women, poor women, and lesbian women cannot separate their identities, nor can the system that oppresses them. They too felt that mainstream feminists were focused solely on white middle-class women and excluded women of color or used them as tokens in their movement. Within Civil Rights and Black Power movements, they also felt a strong sense of sexism coming from male leaders of these groups. They wanted to raise awareness of the ways in which capitalism, white power structures, and patriarchy worked together to oppress women. While they did not agree with lesbian separatism, several of their founders and leaders did identify as lesbian and incorporated acceptance of both hetero- and homosexuality over rejection and division.

Just a few years later, the continued concerns of black women were still being ignored when Audre Lorde wrote to Mary Daly, another influential mainstream feminist. Lorde was saddened by Daly’s recent work that marginalized the experience of black women. She questions Daly’s apparent lack of insight and lack of awareness that the issues facing black women were not the same as white women, and feminists must stop believing their own experiences are representative of everyone. As Lorde points out in her letter, “the history of white women who are unable to hear Black women’s words, or to maintain dialogue with us, is long and discouraging.” (1) Audre Lorde’s letter is often held up as an example of how to directly and effectively address marginalization and ignoring of the Black experience as something different and varied than White experience, although there is debate as to what type of response Lorde received from Daly, when and if they met, and if any of the concerns were seriously addressed.

The CRC espoused a philosophy of inclusion in the feminism, obviously still lacking during the time of Lorde and Daly’s correspondence, that would echo in the writings of bell hooks several years later as she called on women to redefine solidarity in “Sisterhood: Political Solidarity Between Women.” Within the feminist movement, the idea of sisterhood often appeared to mean the bonding of women who felt victimized in a similar way or had experienced similar oppressions. This type of sisterhood led to exclusion of individuals and group who were identified as Other. It is also a way of discounting feminism by those who do not identify as victims. hooks offers an alternative definition of sisterhood. Solidarity, she claimed, should result from the shared concerns and goals of all women for the end of patriarchy and female oppression, not from shared experiences. Women are raised to be in competition with each other, to be “natural enemies,” and are “divided by sexist attitudes, racism, class privilege, and a host of other prejudices.” (44) With an acknowledgement of intersectionality, hooks writes, “unless we can show that barriers separating women can be eliminated, that solidarity can exist, we cannot hope to change and transform society as a whole.” (44) Women must become self-aware of their own learned behavior and beliefs that belittles and devalues other women. Women must confront their own racism and classism. Only with solidarity and unity can women hope to make lasting change.

Johnnie Tillmon brought the overlooked and often purposely ignored issue of welfare and poverty to the feminist discussion. “Welfare as a Women’s Issue” called on women to empathize with those who did not share their economic class. Often seen as lazy or manipulative, welfare mothers had largely been shunned from inclusion in feminist groups and movements. Women who needed the financial support of the welfare system knew what it meant to work hard. Yet somehow, these women are seen as “the cancer, the undeserving poor.” (2) Tillmon describes how it is the system, and not the women themselves, who strip them of their dignity and self-sufficiency. She recognizes that women who are raising children, struggling to put food on the table, and caring for the home deserve to have a living wage. As Tillmon describes, the welfare system forces women to “trade in a man for the man.” (1) Women cannot get the benefits they need for their children if there is an able-bodied man in the house. Random home checks ensure that no man is living there. Women may be forced to “give up control of their own body” and “may even have to agree to get (their) tubes tied.” (1) The system determines where, when and why women can spend their money. The term “welfare mothers” would even become a dirty word, used by politicians to demonize poor black women, even though white women have always been the largest percentage of recipients. Tillmon called on all women to support the fight against a system that forced the lowest of them to submit to a system that was personally invasive, humiliating and demeaning to women, just to be deemed worthy of a benefit that was completely inadequate to provide for the basic needs of their children.

Each of these readings brings greater depth and meaning to the broad range of feminist issues and ideologies, helping to explain the historical roots of modern-day feminist concerns. As a white working-to-middle-class mother myself, Heidi Hartmann’s “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework,” is the reading that struck me most personally. Although the family is traditionally framed as a unit that is a force against the interest of outside systems and instructions, Hartmann offers an “alternative concept of the family as a locus of struggle,” rather than a unified force. (368) The family is where each individual holds their own interests yet share a mutual dependence on one another. Within the family, women provide unvalued and unpaid labor for the direct benefit of the working husband in the home, and indirect benefit for the capitalist system. Hartmann utilized Marxism to frame the family organization and production hierarchy. In it, work is shaped by both patriarchy and capitalism, and it is both domestic responsibility and low wages that keep women dependent on men. In order to remedy the situation, society must not only improve labor opportunities, but must also address the unequal distribution of responsibilities – such as child care and housekeeping – within the home and family structure.

I could go on at length here about my own personal experiences, both in childhood and present-day family structures, but needless to say Hartmann’s description of the family rings true. The unequal distribution of labor is not the only issue affecting mothers and wives in family life. The burden of responsibility unequivocally falls to the women in almost all cases, even when a husband and wife agree to a more equal distribution. Outside forces are constantly pushing and pulling on family resources and labor capital, resulting in very different realities for men and women. The wage gap persists, and often results in women being left with little choice but to stay home to provide child care with ever-rising day care costs. When men are the primary earners, where the family will live is more often than not chosen in relation to his work needs. Family, friends, doctors, teachers, and many others that participate in the lives of children will always assume that the mother will handle primary care-taking and daily responsibilities.  For a man, taking time off from work to tend to child care needs will often be perceived as a lack of seriousness in the workplace when they “have a wife at home who is supposed to take care of such matters.” Children’s physical and emotional development, as well as moral character and temperament are still frequently viewed as the direct result of good or bad “mothering.” Women are expected to put the needs of their children before any personal needs, while men are still largely exempt from completely forfeiting their own sense of self.