Abstract
Although I have identified myself as a feminist for a goodly number of years, it was disconcerting to learn that I have been relegated to a wave. Wave 1 was assigned to the suffragists of the late-19th and early 20th century; wave 2 embraced the ‘personal is political’ activists of the 1960s and 70s; wave 3 encompasses the daughters of wave 2; and, according to Susan Faludi (2010), wave 4 is gaining momentum as I write. I find the ‘wave’ designation troubling, because my mind conjures images of turbulent seas rolling and roiling towards a craggy shore. Much as the breakers bear down on and annihilate their predecessors, the metaphor suggests that later feminists diminish and replace the generations that came before. Indeed, my reading reveals that, in current feminism, the use of ‘wave’ is entirely appropriate.
One of the reasons for my distress about the nomenclature is that many of the issues that feminism has addressed from its inception remain on the table: male hegemony in political, legal, economic, religious, cultural, entertainment, and media systems; inequality in the work place; imbalance in the domestic sphere; sexual tyranny; and violence against women and children. The perpetuation of these ‘norms’ suggests that women, not solely feminists, of all ages and cultures should be united in redressing the inequities. Aren’t women’s issues just one big, wave-less ocean?
Reclaiming the F Word is commendable in that it is devoted, in large part, to the issues. Catherine Redfern and Kristen Aune identify seven themes, whose contents align, to a large degree, with the agenda of 1970s feminists: ‘liberated bodies; sexual freedom and choice; an end to violence against women; equality at work and home; politics and religion transformed; popular culture free from sexism; feminism reclaimed’ (p. 17). Each theme comprises a chapter wherein the topic receives in-depth coverage, and concludes with strategies that promote engagement in activities that bring public attention to the issue. In contrast to the political marches and sit-ins that characterised the women’s movement for their mothers and grandmothers, today’s feminists are encouraged, individually, to do things like write letters and emails, boycott products and businesses, behave ethically, lobby authority, support relevant organisations, and network. While some of these ideas seem obvious, the authors are guiding ‘new’ feminists who lack a visible entity with which to identify.
Underpinning the book is a survey of 1,265 respondents from the United Kingdom. The dates of the year-long survey are not stated, although the participants were solicited from ‘post-2000’ feminist organisations, both actual and electronic. They ranged in age from 15 to 81, with 62 per cent being under 30 years old, and 7.1 per cent were male (the survey results are contained in an Appendix). Their ethnicity was more than 90 per cent ‘white’ (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Irish, British, other); and the same percentage of respondents had post-secondary education. Alongside demographic data, the survey amassed ticked boxes on questions such as longevity as a feminist, affiliation with types of feminism, priority of issues, and views on today’s feminism. Redfern and Aune also conducted an unknown number of interviews, and scanned blogs and writings whose bons mots pepper the text.
As noted above, the authors state that women’s concerns, now, are the same as they were fifty years ago: their survey shows that 85 per cent of participants believe that today’s issues are ‘quite’ or ‘very’ similar to those of the 1970s (16). This statistic is, on the one hand, gratifying, and on the other, disheartening. Recognition of the prevailing inequities by young, educated women gives hope that the problems will continue to be addressed. Alternatively, despite all those women who stood in picket lines for the Equal Pay Act, marched in London in 1971, wrote treatises and started magazines, stood for Parliamentary election, climbed bureaucratic and corporate ladders, and taught women’s studies in academia, the need for vigilance and activism has not been made redundant. Redfern and Aune identify the crux of the matter: ‘only a structural change to the economic world order, coupled with the demolition of the sexist attitudes’ (p. 88) will make a significant difference to the status quo.
So if capitalism and sexism are women’s enemies, why are the waves antagonistic to each other? Faludi’s article provides salutary reading about the current state of US feminism. She describes the 2009 annual meeting of the National Organisation of Women and the conflict surrounding the election of a new president. The generational ganging-up is not a pretty picture, nor is the third/fourth-wave valorisation of Lady Gaga as the epitome of 21st-century feminism. Reclaiming the F Word mentions dissension within the ranks of the UK’s feminists, but keeps the focus on issues. Nevertheless, this book is not inclusive of second-wave feminists: only 3.4 per cent of survey participants were over 60 years of age. Why? Since two-thirds of the questionnaires were completed online (p. 221), and 70 per cent of those questioned credit the internet as being pivotal to today’s movement (p. 15), it is evident that the gap is generational and technological.
Possibilities for inclusion exist. Mary Kelly, described as ‘instrumental in second-wave feminism’ (Grant, 2011: 278), addressed the juxtaposition of her own history with that of her art students in Love Songs, an installation that first took place at the Documenta XII art fair in Kassel in 2007. At its centre was Multi-Story House (created in conjunction with Ray Barrie), a walk-in space that emanated light. On the inside of the house were snippets of text originating with second-wave feminists; on the outside, their progeny voiced notions about their foremothers. The house metaphor is encompassing and traditionally representative of women; and the back-to-back texts suggest proximity and interrelationship. The beauty of Multi-Story House lies in its interior glow, indicative of the past that ‘sheds light’ on the present and future – Grant (2011: 283) suggests that this is ‘perhaps the lost centre that the younger generation is trying to create’. What seems equally relevant is the personal engagement between Mary Kelly and her students. This positive rubbing-up against each other and visual analogy provide me with more optimism than the exhortation to join the high seas of a purported ‘new’ F movement.