Is there such a thing as modern feminism?
As a composition instructor, the only short-story I routinely keep in my repertoire is “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin. It’s a nifty little tale of an aristocratic young woman with a heart condition in late 19th Century Louisiana who finds out that her indifferent husband has been killed in a train accident. After an explosive weeping jag, she retreats to her room to be alone. Outside the window, signs of spring abound and a delicious storm looms in the distance, metaphorically representing the new birth the woman is about to recognize: “Free, free, free,” she whispers. And so she is, free from the repression of being the wife of someone as opposed to simply being someone. Her new-found independence inspires a reaction that is overwhelming both emotionally and physically. She leaves the room and descends the stairs, carrying herself like a “goddess of Victory”….until her husband, who was nowhere near the train accident, comes through the front door, a vicious plot twist which rings the poor, troubled heart of our protagonist: she dies on the spot.
My students howl and moan at the ending. We talk about this woman’s condition and how much this small moment of freedom must have meant to her. We talk about what it must be like to not be free in any circumstance. And then we talk specifically about women’s rights. Kate Chopin was one of the earliest advocates for gender equality – a first stone-thrower in a battle that didn’t formally begin until more than a half-century after her death. To provide some context into this saga, and some optimism and lightness in a conversation that can be bellied in sorrow (and even anger), I offer up one of my favorite anecdotes: the lamb chop story.
I tell my students about how my wife has a group of girlfriends from college who are still very close. They get together, spouses and all, once or twice a year. A few years back, one summer evening at someone’s house, the women were inside while the respective husbands sat on the deck talking about dinner. I suggested rack of lamb, cut into chops that we singe on the grill and eat with our hands. Oooh…that sounded good, but one husband objected:
“Lamb is too expensive!” he said. “Let’s have hamburgers.”
“Come on,” I pleaded. “We can afford lamb chops. All our wives make great money!”
The reality of the point – that all six of us modern dudes were out-earned by our wives – dawns on my class in the same manner as it did on us guys sitting on that deck, one minute contemplating lamb chops and the next our non-status as primary bread winners. Kate Chopin would be pleased, I suspect (though she would surely know, as many of my students point out, that women overall still earn less than men).
♦◊♦
And this, until the other day, was sort of my purview on the state of modern women, at least as it pertained to mainstream American culture (therefore, obviously, excluding the exploitation of women through trafficking, prostitution, and other gender-oriented horrors). I figured that things were kind of cool. That was until I read Tom Matlack’s piece in this magazine on Lady Gaga and Chelsea Handler, and the reaction it evoked from the readers of Jezebel.
Clearly, Tom thinks more about feminism than I do (though I bet I know more about lamb chops than he does – take that, Matlack!). And his article, about pop culture finally getting things right in its broad acceptance of two independent women not known primarily for their looks, seemed insightful and articulate. I envied his brains and his range. Clearly, the intention (which should never be underestimated when considering someone’s work) was positive – a hand across the gender aisle. At minimum, it was a point worthy of discussion, and a decent effort by a decent man. The negative reaction it evoked from many (not all) readers of Jezebel, and Tom’s defensive reaction to that reaction (which really brought out the vitriol), stunned me into thinking hard about modern feminism and how it is explored and discussed in contemporary America.
Despite a worthy effort, I didn’t get very far with my exploration. There are plenty of women I admire from a variety of fields, but I couldn’t think of a contemporary feminist other than Maureen Dowd (and my feelings on her change from week to week). I don’t know of a single feminist media source (before my very recent introduction to Jezebel). Who are the feminist activists and artists and commentators? There’s a lot I don’t know about feminism, but I do know that this important conversation is not going to take place primarily on comment walls in cyberspace; it’s too easy to poison the punch with anonymous anger (keep this in mind, potential responders).
So, where is feminism explored in viable mediums or respectful public discourse?
An interested but uninformed guy has to ask: Where have you gone Kate Chopin?
–
— Photo Maureen Lunn/Flickr
About Andrew Cotto
Is there such a thing as modern feminism? I think that’s like asking if there’s a modern civil rights movement concerning race or sexuality. (The answer is yes, if you look hard enough and involve yourself in it.) I’m kind of disappointed this is even a question on an ally website.
There are many places where it exists — shakesville, feministing, NOW, mizjenkins’ tumblr, womanist musings, the White House Project, the Wage Project, Ms Magazine, Feministe, Tigerbeatdown, etc. And dare I say the Good Men Project too? And Jezebel.
Here’s why Matlack got a mostly negative response to his article: the fact that he chose two fairly non-transgressive, attractive women and proclaims them to be transgressive because they’re not attractive is a bit odd and insulting to a lot Jezebel commentators. “And his article, about pop culture finally getting things right in its broad acceptance of two independent women not known primarily for their looks” A lot of Jezebel commenters would argue these women have been a success *because* of their looks, along with their talent and general awesomeness. That’s why the topic is so controversial. Also, that Matlack points out two male Jezebel commenters to exemplify women on Jezebel is ironic. Yes, AndPreciousLittleofThat is a dude. So is the commenter who posted the Margaret Cho video.
I think what you all are trying to do with the Good Men Project is admirable, but please when you receive criticism that *is* warranted, digest it, reflect on it and listen. Then write about it. Whining that Jezebel readers hate men and asking where modern feminism has gone is silly when one posts a not very well thought out or written article on an extremely sarcastic website filled with whip-smart commenters comes across as insulting as if women are not allowed to critique writing or be sarcastic. Women writers get the same treatment on Jezebel, so Matlack won’t be treated with kid gloves just because he’s a guy.
Finally, as a white woman, what Matlack wrote and posted would be akin to me writing an article on Kanye, saying how transgressive he is and me expecting a cookie for being an ally against racism on a website read mostly by people of color. Just because I’m white and I have insights on race, does not mean I deserve a cookie for educating myself. Just because Matlack as a guy who is at the “embyonic stage” (as Erin Ryan, a writer for Jezebel says he is) of understanding feminism, does not mean he deserves accolades for an intellectual equivalent of a baby-step in writing about feminism. Keep at it though. The criticism should not make you run for the hills, but make you (or Matlack) want to gain a deeper understanding of feminism and write better articles. When I’ve been called out by people of color on being an ally, it doesn’t make me question the movement. It makes me reevaluate my thoughts and behaviors, and most importantly, makes me listen to people of color who know much more about experiencing racism than I ever will.
I really appreciate your response, Modern Feminist. I was a little confused about this article – a man who does not have a lot of experience with feminism asking what has happened to modern feminism? Why? Andrew, it almost felt like with some of this you were trying to provide a public shoulder for Tom (or serve as an apologist) for his effort in reaching his “hand across the aisle” because he got his ego bruised.
As a man who did gender studies (read: feminist studies) in graduate school fifteen years ago and was one of the very few guys in the classes I often felt “attacked” and “defensive” when the reality was that it was never about me. It was an emotional exploration into what it meant to be a woman and a man where for centuries men had been defining BOTH. And, yes, the women (both students and professors) were very sensitive when I opened my mouth and even more so when I tried to talk about men’s experience. But I kept coming back and listening and eventually I was even heard once they knew that I had really heard them. I could say more but the point is that I read the putative “attack” on Tom on the Jezebel site (when I could follow the “conversations” in the comments) and did not see most of it as anything more than most of the readers saying: Do you REALLY want to be a part of this conversation? Do you REALLY want to learn what this is all about? If so, then be teachable and listen. And stick around. Can you take the heat and stay in the kitchen? It seems similar to the response that is common for teachers/practicum students who go into very difficult environments and the people – who have been through this all before – want to know if you are serious. Do you think you understand us because you have read some books or have good ideas? Are you going to stick around? Are you in this for you or to really make a difference and a connection? And, as I believe will be the case with GMP and Tom, the result is a positive one when the intentions are good and the heart is pure – no matter how bumpy or naive the start is.
The analogy to the comment about Kanye made a lot of sense to me.
My two cents…
Totally agree. I’ve definitely put my foot in my mouth more than once trying to be supportive of LGBT rights and racial equality, but yeah, sometimes getting smacked down a peg puts one’s ego in check. Then you realize, oh wait, I do have a crap-ton of privilege and maybe I’m talking down to an audience who is far more intimate with experiencing oppression. I guess it mostly came across as ‘hey, women aren’t just pretty anymore!’ Uh, thanks for that revelation?
Thanks for the advice, Dan, though it seems you’re ignoring my premis in order to tout your exceptionalism. The paradigm you suggest for entry into a conversation strikes me as exclusive.
I don’t REALLY want to immerse myself in feminist matters or expose myself to “smack downs” in order to be humbled so I can learn from those clearly wiser than I. Do I need to convince feminists that I will “stick around” before I can even have a conversation? I don’t need cookies or kid glove- treatment. And no one needs me apolgizing for them.
The article is a recognition that I’m out of the loop on feminism and that may be because feminism isn’t openly explored these days in mainstream media. Here’s the essay’s main point: Who are the feminist activists and artists and commentators?
That’s the conversation, which is a simple one and open to the honest exchange of ideas. No dogma.
As you said, the “result is a positive one when intentions are good and the heart is pure.”
Hi Andrew – i probably was not as clear as I could have been. Because your article was about Tom’s posting (at least to some degree) it was Tom and his effort I was referring to the most so maybe the response belonged in his post as much as yours. I do think the message you wanted to communicate was not as clear as you state it immediately above. Please don’t get me wrong – I am not trying to be personally critical (at this point of my life I seem to be more like you because I have been detached from feminism in my immersion in it for some time – though its fundamental tenets still inform a lot of my thinking and my work) so much as you ask a pretty bold question at the end and the assumption is that you have some basis (and implicit to that some degree of research or immersion in the current feminist movement/efforts) for asking it so that is where my comment/s came from and what you interpret as exceptionalism/exclusive.
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate the thoughts. Well said and points taken.
I certainly read Andrew’s article as more than simply “Whining that Jezebel readers hate men and asking where modern feminism has gone.” Modern Feminist claims that Andrew oversimplifies the Matlack article, and in doing so oversimplifies his article. Before I know it, I’m watching a straw man fight a straw man, as most arguments (and many feminist arguments) are reduced to.
Enlightenment begins with asking questions, which Andrew did, and ends with listening for the answers without a defensive ear, as Dan suggests.
Wow, um, hello Ms. Chopin. I love your work. Thanks for chiming in.
Thanks, Modern Feminist. I appreciate your time and thoughts. I’ll take your points into consideration and hope others will, as well.
Best Regards,
Andrew
Andrew loved this piece. I admire your writing greatly. Thank you.
And I also love being at the “embyonic stage” of just about anything.
I think that means I am about to start a wonderful journey, right?
Hey Tom.
Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them very much. Maybe we’ll go on this journey together – sounds a hell of a lot more up my alley than that bike trek!
Best,
Andrew
I like feministing.com.
Ps, I bet there are feminists all around you, just ask around.
Hi Annie.
Thanks for the website suggestion.
Yes, there are feminists around me (I don’t have to ask). What I was wondering in the article was where were the public feminist figures (a la Kate Chopin from more than a century ago). It seems like many of these matters have gone underground in today’s techonological age, and, like most, I still rely on big-media (novels, movies, music, major newspapers & magazines) for information since I simply do not have time to hit websites on a regular basis.
Have you been to a book store? I mean…. you will get a stand out like Kate Chopin when you live in an era where 99% of all books are written by men. But now, women write books at the speed of light. Hundreds if not thousands of them. Some are fictional… some are non-fiction.
Have you read anything from Barbara Ehrenrich (non-fiction)? Margaret Atwood (fiction)?
GOOGLE: Women’s writers…
In fact, as I recall there was a blog or website that made a list of 100 books men who haven’t read books by women should read.
Hi Sara,
Yes, I’ve been to a book store. And, yes, I’ve read women writers.
That said, Margaret Atwood is a good idea. Thanks for that!
Best,
Andrew
@Tom, you’re about to start a wonderful journey…if you can accept criticism. I liken it to being an art student and having your blood sweat and tears of a painting shredded by a professor’s critique. It’s a hard lesson to learn, but it only increased my skills as an artist. Although I didn’t comment at Jezebel on the original article, I did read it and look forward to reading more of your work as you continue to wrestle with what it means to be a modern feminist and attain the level of male feminist writing ninja.
@Andrew Thanks
As men trying so very hard to please women and be good men we would be wise not to upset them as Tom’s article did. Then follow it up with an article like this one. We want to be good men, we really do but how are we to please women and be worthy if we criticize things like this?
Women know what affects their feelings. We need to be more sensitive if we ever plan on being good men.
Hi Ryan,
I appreciate your sentiment, though being careful to not upset women seems a little precious. As does the idea that as “good men” we are supposed to “please women” as a priority. Understanding women, or wanting to understand women, and their status in society seems like a good place to start.
The comments in return are welcome, of course.
Are you trying to earn some brownie points with this response? I’m not sure women are aiming for a role-reversal here.
Tom I think you should consider participation in the Walk A Mile In Her Shoes Campaign.
or how about @Ryan write for Good Men?
Are you sure we are worthy? The site should be turned over to feminists. Saves time rather than having emasculated self loathing men write. Don’t you think?
Great idea, Ryan. Why didn’t I think of that? Oh, maybe because I’m not emasculated or self-loathing. Thuogh saving time sounds like a good idea. Later.
I think part of the answer to the question is that the Kate Chopins aren’t as culturally relevant as they once were.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, let me explain.
The early feminist movements focused on very overt forms of oppression— voting rights, institutionalized work-place discrimination— and rightfully so. The ability to influence policy, own property, and generate income were matters of safety and survival. I’m not saying those fights are over, but they have definitely progress to the fine-tuning stages. Oppression and discrimination are more covert now. It’s not socially acceptable to beat your wife, but it still happens because society embraces more subtle ideas that devalue and objectify women. People crack jokes, think less of women who dress provocatively or engage in sex work, and bully effeminate men— all because femininity does not have the social value that masculinity does, especially in a culture that is a) so intensely capitalistic and b) more individualistic vs. collective. It just so happens that independence and ambition (characteristics that we have labeled “masculine”) gel better with this culture than compassion and empathy (characteristics that we have labeled as “feminine”). That means we have to take the fight to the micro- rather than macro- level. While there are plenty of movements and causes and media outlets that are feminist in nature, most of the feminists I know fight the good fight by educating the people they interact with on a daily basis because— let’s be honest— not many folks out there are seeking information of deconstructing gender as a social construct.
Additionally, a huge focus of modern feminism is the intersection of feminist though with other oppressed groups– LGBT individuals, the socioeconomically underprivileged, racial minorities– that earlier feminist movements excluded. Even men are oppressed by the misogyny and patriarchy that they often (unknowingly) help to perpetuate.
So feminism is still out there, alive and kickin’. It just doesn’t look the same, which is a good thing. We’ve learned and adapted.
Hi Man-lovin’ Feminist. Thanks for your thoughts. Your point about today’s Kate Chopins not being as culturally relelvant is the primary point of the article. Why isn’t feminism part of the “macro” conversation? There’s no criticism of anyone or apologizing for anyone either. Wasn’t “seeking information of deconstructing gender as a social construct” the premis of the piece?
It was definitely the premise of your piece, and I think people that are into sites like this definitely understand the concept, but most gender equality advocacy unfortunately tends to target a very specific demographic— educated people with WASP-ish middle-class values. I think that goes for most civil rights movements, though, and a lot of it has to do with logistics. These are the people who seek out articles like yours not only because they’ve been exposed to these ideas but because they have the time and money to pursue further learning.
I think feminsm isn’t so much a part of the macro conversation any more because larger issues— that are more unversal in nature— have reached a “good enough” point. (I’m not saying women have really acheived true equality or that things really are acceptable as they are, just that, like I said earlier, very overt forms of discrimination that affect all women in very obvious ways have been aired and dealt with to the extent that overarching action— legislation, especially— can achieve.) From here on out, it’s about more specific populations’ issues and the very difficult work of changing attitudes as opposed to policies, so modern feminism is very divided and more dispersed throughout other movements and, as a result, simply has not been able to achieve the same visibility as feminism of the past.
There have been more movements to unify some of these issues and populations. I’m the director of SlutWalk St. Louis, and that’s what we’re trying to accomplish— bring enough different populations and issues together to achieve the critical mass necessary to get the attention we all need to start necessary conversations. The movement is not without its critics, and many of them have well-founded concerns, but I can say that in my city, it has proven to be a necessary and highly effective approach.
Another humorous, thoughtful and engaging piece Andy!
Thanks, Todd!
If you would like a brilliant, modern feminist thinker, look no farther than Latoya Peterson, of the Racialicious blog. Reading that for the past five years (and its sister site Love Isn’t Enough) has taught me so much about this fourth wave of feminism. But it’s Ms. Peterson who rocks my socks with her nuanced understanding of anti-racism, feminism, and life. Because that’s where the culture is made, in the nooks and crannies of daily life known as pop culture.
Thanks, Allief!
I’ll check out Latoya Peterson.
Best,
Andrew
Just a thought on Kate Chopin – I don’t think she really was a feminist. I think for her it was more about freedom. She liked Maupassant and her stories and his have a similar flavor.
I think modern feminism is floundering a bit, in part because it has been so successful. We’ve made a lot of progress and we’re not united about where to go next.
There are, however, still many feminist organizations out there working for women’s rights. And there are international groups fighting for rights that we take for granted.
Hi Black Iris,
Thanks for the thoughts. Your point is particularly well-taken about the current status of the movement. I think the success has made it seem less relevant, though there is work to do. I did read an article this weekend about the economic inequity decreasing…
Best,
Andrew
I just checked out the original piece and some of the comments. My basic reaction is that they aren’t that unusual for the Internet. They don’t like his piece, they think Gaga and Handler aren’t the best examples of a paradigm shift in our understanding of womanhood. The tone is harsher than you would use if you were talking to a friend who wrote something, but it’s par for the course on the Web. As one woman points out after Matlack complained, the criticisms are nothing like the kind of harassment women sometimes get in debates on the Web.
Of course, the GoodMenProject tries to set a different tone. So if you want to complain about the Web in general, it makes sense to, but to complain that Jezebel readers were unusually hard on the article doesn’t seem true to me.
More about the original piece. I think Matlack really missed something in his piece. It’s the kind of thing that hits women like a physical blow. I don’t think he intended it that way at all, I completely believe he meant it differently.
So, here’s the thing. My reading of the article is that Matlack believes Gaga and Chandler challenge men to value women and not just see them as sex objects. The suggestion is that they do this because they are good at something without being beautiful. That’s when your average woman just wants to cry. If they’re not beautiful, what the hell are we? How good do we have to look?
Think about male comedians. Jason Alexander, Jay Leno, Benny Hill, Bill Maher, Bob Hope, Jackie Gleason, etc. They’re not even 1/100th as good-looking as Gaga and Chandler. It’s a huge double standard.
I believe that Matlack wanted to say, look, we’re moving past objectifying women, but instead his article brings home that for women the bar on being acceptably attractive is so much higher than for men. It also looks like maybe that was something he didn’t even see. Our media is so saturated with the idea that women must be supermodels to be attractive but guys don’t, that a guy might think he was saying something progressive about women and objectification when he was just twisting the dagger a little.
Your point about the actual beauty, generally speaking, about the two women mentioned seems to be the point of controversy. I get that, though it seems to be the audience – as opposed to the author – who is putting a premium on beauty.