A Note on "Postfeminist"

Pray tell, what is "postfeminist"? I got tripped up on the word in this interesting article in the NYT bemoaning the BS that working mothers are still putting up with. Now, it seems to me if these women's issues, which were at the fore of feminist activism, are still ongoing and unresolved, we might not be in any sort of state that could rightly be called "postfeminist." We could still just be in a plain ol' feminist era. Right? Anybody? Bueller?

Mom’s Mad. And She’s Organized.

For years, mothers have been taking to the Internet to blog or post messages about the travails of motherhood, commiserating, fuming or laughing about their shared lives. But in the last year there has been a marked increase in those who are going beyond simply expressing their feelings. In a throwback to their mothers’ — or was it their grandmothers’? — time, they are organizing about family and work issues.

A generation of mothers who are largely perceived as postfeminist in every way, from sex to economic discrimination, has begun a consciousness-raising that is almost old-fashioned were it not for the technology involved. Raised to believe that girls could accomplish anything, these women have reached parenthood, only to find they faced many of the same pay, equity and work-family balance issues that were being fought over decades before. From that awakening, they say, has come the inkling of a new movement.

In many ways, these groups are repackaging issues that have been around for nearly 50 years and have proven intractable despite the efforts of legions of activists, lawyers and elected officials.

"Repackaging issues that have been around for nearly 50 years" sounds like there's no "post" in there at all, because, to state the obvious, these issues have been around for nearly 50 (sic) years. If that's the case, who determines the "post"ness of feminism? Methinks this is, in part, an acknowledgment that the public discourse is no longer feminist, per se, or even pro-woman or even about women. Hence, every decade or so we have to reconceptualize, rename, reorder the very same issues that have never left the feminist table. But heaven forfend we refer to them as feminist! It's much more palatable (for reasons having to do w/ a fear of large scale female political agency, perhaps?) to sell the lie that feminism has passed, it is over, we are done w/ it and w/ its points of agitation, goodbye to all that, and so on.

But we're clearly not past all that, as this article about "postfeminist" response to women's issues attests. And this is why I am a feminist, why I call myself a feminist in as many conversations and contexts as needed, and why I will continue to do so. Feminism is not over. The need for it has not passed. Not by a long shot. We need to reject characterizations such as "postfeminist" as the insidious, invidious diversion tactics they are. Feminism is a continuing struggle, connected to the long history of women's (and other) activism and courage. We have a lot to learn from those who've come before, and, frankly, I resent any imposed distance between us and the very real successes of First and Second Wave feminism.

Spinning our wheels engaging these same issues anew every decade or so, because we are said to be in a so-called postfeminist era, is a waste of energy, resources, and valuable time. As my personal shero Gloria Steinem said so eloquently, I'll be postfeminist in the post-patriarchy.

Comments

[Diane]

I hate to say it, but I believe we ARE in a post-feminist era. Not that there isn't any feminism going on, but the movement obviously has little or no power, judging by media images, language, the glass ceiling, salaries, sex crimes, etc.

[arse poetica]

Diane! Say it isn't so! I can't take it! I'm counting on you to singlehandedly (almost) revive the movement!

Okay, enough exclamations for one comment. I take your point. And though I hear you, and I worry (obviously), I just don't want to believe it. That language is dangerous, overplayed, and manipulative (but then, what isn't?). It insidiously gives the impression that these issues are long past, women have transcended (and now choose their objectification, for instance), and it's only humorless obsessives (ahem) who can't let the bad old times go. Oh hell, I'm moving to another planet. Or to your garden so I can hang w/ R, V, ZS, and T (and O, of course). =D

[Diane]

You can't choose your objectification if you don't know you're being objectified. I think internalized sexism is a big as it was before the Second Wave, and there needs to be a new sweep of consciousness-raising, but how many times do we have to do this? I'm not doing it for anyone...they can do it for themselves.

(And Ziggy Stardust wonders if, when you come, you could bring him an ipod some Blockbuster coupons...)

[Maitresse]

Hi there, I just found your blog, and felt moved to respond.

It's true that feminism gets renamed every couple of decades or so; Third-Wave feminism has (Diane rightly points out) lost its power and influence, and, no thanks to super-militant feminists (affectionately dubbed "feminazis" by almost everyone during my years at Barnard), feminist concerns now look to the mainstream like Judith Regan-style proclamations about testicle-eating or schoolmarmish interdictions against pornography. Which leads the mainstream media to dub this a "post-feminist" period, because we saw where "feminism" led, and all it seems to have accomplished is young girls feel like they're claiming their right to sexuality by dressing like slappers at age 13, and twentysomething college graduates believing it is their right to choose to stay home and be a housewife, and that this choice is somehow empowering.

So sure, whatever, Second Wave, Third Wave, No Wave, feminist, postfeminist-- all these terms group together a bunch of people who have little in common besides their reproductive organs, and sometimes not even that. It's the patriarchy that need redefining-- not the women's movement.

(Am I making any sense here?)

Best,
Lauren