Is the next stage of feminism to leave “feminism” behind?

At a very young age was made familiar with the word “feminism”.  It was made clear to me it was a positive term to be embraced, if it had certain connotations.  At the time those “connotations” were more of things like bra-burning, radical behaviors that might not be embraced by everybody. What was not clear to me, until relatively recently, was the exclusivity of the term. That is that the kind of feminism that I had been brought up on, rights to one’s own body/reproductive rights, promotion of women in the workplace, equal pay and the like, were a particular brand of feminism, specifically the white, middle-class kind.

I have always been around people of color, in schools, in my community, in my workplace. I have always taken seriously the issues of racism, and in college became familiar with reproductive issues beyond birth control and abortion, i.e. forced sterilization of women of color. However as I left college for a professional career my attention to these issues waned in my conscience.  I should add that I have worked in female-dominated environments with substantial minority representation (if not in positions of power). If on occasion I paid attention to feminist issues, and noted that the people were represented were overwhelming white my inherent tendency was to think it was an oversight. That maybe the women of color who also were involved with the struggle were busy that day. That there was not a systemic attempt to keep women of color, and issues most important to them, off the agenda. When the term “intersectionality” become a thing, I was a little confused. Were we not all on the same page already?

A few weeks ago the hash tag #whitesolidarityforwhitewomen, started by Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia) became a thing. Most of the tweets under this hash tag could be described as complaints about white, middle-class feminism and the media outlets that support it, as well as ways women of color are marginalized, in society, in the media, and even in the activist groups that supposedly support them.  Regardless of the critiques themselves the fact that there was such an overwhelming response to such a thing should give white women pause.  Clearly, many women of color felt they were not being represented, that the “whiteness” of many women’s groups was not by accident, but by design, whether it was conscious or not. Clearly, if there is such a thing as feminist movement it is already divided, if so many women feel they are outside it.

There was an unfortunate tendency for some to complain, essentially, that the critiques were not “fair”. Can I just say I do not think any racial group uses the word “fair” more than white people? I think that it comes from the (imaginary) world that most white people live –where everybody is treated equally regardless of race, creed, and social status. The world where everybody has a chance to “climb the economic ladder”-it just takes hard work and education don’t you know! I feel that people of color, particularly women, tend to not talk about “fairness” but justice, what is right and what is deserved. It has to be fought for, it is rarely given.

You cannot help whom you are, where you come from. We all have benefited from who came before us, some of us much more than others. But, that doesn’t mean you can’t pay attention, and listen to others. If in this year of 2013, post-Trayvon Martian, post-Kiera Wilmot, you can say that “race” is trivial (as one tweet that came across my timeline did) I can’t help you. If you can look at the numbers regarding drug arrests, prison populations, recognizing that for every black man in prison there is at least one black woman suffering, I can’t help you. If you look at the losses of jobs and wealth in the great recession, so much more for people of color than white people, no tweet or hash tag is going to make sense to you. All of us who consider ourselves “women”, (regardless of actual anatomy) share many things in common, but if we cannot realize the different experiences we have as shaped by other factors, what is the purpose in “solidarity’?

Which brings me around to the point of this post, is the forth wave of “feminism” not to be “feminism” at all? The way” feminism” has been traditionally articulated, has an agenda that could be considered “corporate”, and as result has only been really embraced by a certain group of women. The idea seemed to be if we got enough women in positions of power—not to fight the corporate model but to change it by taking it over, to “lean in” this would uplift women.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue that for most women, the dominant concern is survival, how has this worked?  I would state for the record, that it has not. The most important issues to this cohort, (middle to upper-class women) reproductive issues, employment options (flexible work, paid maternity leave, childcare options) have changed little in the past twenty years. Work-life “balance," the middle-class woman’s mantra, is as elusive as ever. The response of the Sheryl Sandburg’s of the world seems to be, well we just to do a little more, to “lean in” and we can fix it, and really we can. The reality is, lifting up comes from below, and it does not trickle down.

The corporate model is not compatible with humanity; it values profit, the transfer of the public to private in the name of “efficiency” and “competiveness”. The corporate model leaves the handful of people who were not able to jump on that boat remaining at the shore, fighting over the scraps that are left. The women who have risen in this system generally embrace it—you actually have to do this if you are to rise—and beyond tooling around the edges these women are not interested in changing it. Therefore one could make the argument that you could have women in 90% of CEO positions, and little would change.

This lack of change could also be seen in the recent article “Opting out”. The purpose of this article was to interview women who has “opted out” to stay with their kids, 10 years later, to see how things had changed, or not. What women found difficult was not their children per se, they all had all appreciated the chance to be home when their kids were young, but dealing with the (lack of) sharing of household duties with their husbands, and the difficulty of returning to work.  The response to this from a predictable right-wing source, Meg McArdle, was basically oh that’s just the way it is. If you want to be at the top, male or female, you need to put the hours in—that’s the way the system works. But the writer of the piece quite specifically points out that the “elites” of her group had no problems returning to work. The women who had problems were not looking for the corner office, they were not looking for “career plums”, they were just looking to get work that was in the neighborhood of where they had been. They understood they had stepped off the train; they just wanted to get back on. The idea is one should be able to return to work roughly where one left off, maybe a little behind if things have changed but roughly in the same spot. But these women, frequently, were just looking for work, any kind of work where they could make enough to justify being away from their kids. What they found was significantly below what they had before, which predictably resulted in increased stress on the whole family.

The best way to solve the problems articulated in this article is not a endless round of dumb-ass questions/discussions regarding stay-at-home moms versus working moms, is daycare harmful to children, what do women have to do to get ahead etc. The best way to solve these problems is to enact policies that provide for full employment and reduce economic equality.

The dramatic changes that have occurred in the workplace since the “recovery” began-less benefits, increases in part-time work (when people want full-time work), the relentless wage drop/stagnation, the complete disregard for employee health-are occurring because corporate American can do it.  There is no housing bubble, it’s a little harder to make money out of nothing through “financialization” but corporate America still needs to support the 1%. That support is coming directly from the 99% in these changes in the labor market. Even so unemployment is high, as a result there are always workers ready to fill spots—unemployment is high in every job area. When you hear nonsense about a “skills-gap” that’s corporate America trying to cut wages. As a result inequity under the Obama administration has accelerated and grown larger.

In addition to full employment there needs to be a continued push for single payer health-care in some kind of form, and guaranteed income. We can raise the minimum wage, and support the fast food workers fight for fifteen movement. In short, could spend a lot of time persuading companies to “do the right thing” or we could say fuck it, we are going to make sure people have enough to live on, and be able to go to the hospital when they need to, without worrying about going bankrupt.  We have the money, it’s not technology’s fault either.

If we are serious about engaging women fully, it starts with economic equality issues, which naturally dovetail with others. While considering anniversary of the March on Washington Michelle Alexander made a recent statement regarding the need to "connect the dots between poverty, racism, militarism and materialism". Focusing on economic equality, pushing for "a radical structuring of society"will do more for feminism than anything else. We could all do with "getting out of (our) lanes" and demanding a brave new world where we all valued, women most of all. 

What Part of “My Body” Don’t You Understand, Thoughts on Reproductive Freedom

If you are a woman, a significant part of your existence is focused on your “ladyparts”. This is regardless of whether you plan to use your uterus for its intended function or not, as a woman’s reproductive system is set to the “on” position from roughly ages 12-45, if left on its own.  Even if no sperm makes a visit, you still have to, on a monthly basis, take care of things. So the idea of essential reproductive rights—that is the ability to control one’s own reproductive system—is never far away.

Nevertheless the predominance of these necessary rights changes throughout one’s life-for myself, as I got older, out of college, established in my career, an unintended pregnancy lost the scariness that it had when I was in high school. In high school, even college, it was the worst thing imaginable. When I got married and wanted to have kids I had very different reproductive concerns.

“Reproductive freedom” encompasses much, a 12 year old getting a papillomavirus vaccine, a 19 year old contemplating an abortion, a 25 year old gender-questioning woman, a 28 year Native American woman being encouraged to undergo sterilization (probably by a white doctor) an 18 year old African-American woman sterilized against her will for “lack of intelligence” (again, decided by a white man), a 41 year old considering a hysterectomy and breast removal to avoid cancer, a woman in her 50s contemplating her best treatment for menopause. All of these can fall under the rubric “reproductive rights”, and I would also add women’s childbirth choices and early childhood/infant choices. All of these rights can be covered by one simple rule; a person has right to make her/his health decisions about her/his own body.  A person has the right to research-based medical advice, essential reproductive health care-be it an abortion, homebirth, surgery or no surgery.

This is inherently a women’s issue, or more specifically anybody with a female reproductive system because frankly, the male system is not much, and the only time it *does anything* is when it interacts with the female reproductive system. And once it’s in the female reproductive system that is all. I know an embryo has half male DNA but the ENTIRE birthing process, from prenatal through early infant care, is completely female. It is the female who has to bear the pregnancy, which can have real health consequences, the birth process-which has a higher mortality rate than abortion, and really, the child-rearing process. We can talk all we want about shared parenting, men have come a long way and that’s great for everybody.  But the simple fact is by design the post-natal process, named the “fourth trimester” by some is really about the mother.  To a large extent in most families mothers by choice, do the majority of child-rearing even after the immediate post-natal period. Frankly, I think this is hard-wired to some extent, part of nature’s way of continuing the human race. Women have to choose this, not have it forced on them.

People who claim to be “pro-life” have a rather narrow view of “life”. In their eyes “life” is most precious at the prenatal stage, when arguably, it is not life really at all. “Life” does not extend to the pregnant mother-whether her health is a concern, whether the process to create the thing inside her was by her choice, or that her life with a new child might be impossible if her financial situation is precarious. I heard little outcry regarding the case of Reyna Garcia, who miscarried while working under unsafe-for her pregnancy-conditions. More than 3,700 pregnancy discrimination charges were filed with the EEOC last year, in spite of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Because of this continued discrimination, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was recently reintroduced to address these issues. You’ll be shocked, shocked, to know that the House Republicans, while having time to pass a bill to restrict abortions after 20 weeks, do not have time to pass a bill aimed to protect pregnant women.

Having a child is expensive, and raising a child is expensive. Women who are denied abortions, because they do not have the money or missed the magical 20-week point-of-no-return deadline suffer in terms of health and in terms of financial status. And by financial status I am not talking about a car payment, I’m talking about food, housing. Do you know who the poor people of the world are-they are women and children. Yet “pro-life” politicians are generally the same politicians who want to cut food stamps and limit health care access-either by restricting Medicaid funds and/or limiting Medicaid expansion under the ACA. Again, it’s funny how important that “life” is when it is inside a woman. Once it gets out, not so much.

“Pro-lifers” have no qualms about forcing a child on a woman, and make no mistake when you make contraception education non-existent, contraception, and early abortion alternatives such as plan B or RU486 difficult to get, and/or expensive YOU are forcing a child. This one of the many reasons pro-choice woman simply cannot take “pro-life” people seriously. If you really want to limit abortion it’s not difficult.  You educate young people early; you provide safe, reliable, affordable contraception. If you want women to have babies maybe you could strengthen the “safety net” instead of constantly cutting it. Let’s be clear, these restrictions will only hurt the most vulnerable women. White, wealthy women will always have a doctor to help. They always do.

As somebody with no current reproductive worries I have not been very emotionally invested in this issue until recently, when apparently with no other pressing concerns, the collective legislatures of Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina decided that restricting a woman’s right to her body was necessary. With more than 100,000 people I watched the You Tube stream of a huge crowd demanding to be heard on the right to choose. No matter what happens in Texas, and odds are the anti-abortion bill will pass in some form or another, that kind of organization is incredibly inspiring and will hopefully lead to good things in some form or another.

Why these battles have to be constantly fought is a question those of us pushing reproductive freedom have to ask. I think a part of it, as I alluded to earlier, is broadening the coalition. Freedom of your reproductive system includes many things, including forced sterilization, which has been a larger issue affecting women of color. North Carolina, while seeing fit to punish woman who desire to end pregnancy, have not done justice to the thousands of women sterilized against their will. Addressing health access broadly, and not allowing controversial issues to be isolated, linking reproductive freedom with the many issues it crosses paths with, could this help?

To those of you “pro-lifers” please JUST.STOP.ALREADY. Please freedom-lovers, give us our freedom-nobody has ever explained to me why liberty ends at my uterus. In West Texas where the fertilizer explosion was that leveled the town, there was no fire code, hence no sprinkler system or firm alarms (via @MikeElk). So while safety regulations are too much, apparently there is no end to the restrictions to what a woman can do with her own body. We can’t regulate corporations but uteruses? Yes, yes we can.

As for the “life” question. -I do not question what is inside a pregnant woman is “life”. But yeast is “life”, so is a tree, a mushroom, a cat. We do not treat all form of life the same, and the concept that the mass of differentiated cells inside a woman’s body should preempt that woman who is an independent, living breathing fully formed person  . . . no. You can show me all the dismembered fetuses you want, you can tell me all the Kermit Gosnell stories you want-it does not matter. Because what I see is a women’s choice to protect herself, to maybe even save herself. Every child a wanted child, and every woman’s life is more important then what her body makes. Period.

Is it fair to blame Sheryl Sandberg for what passes for feminism?

Sheryl Sandberg's new book "Lean In" is not out yet but the media have been busy. There have been two general schools of thought--one from women like Linda Hirshman and Joan Walsh who insist she is right on and the "haters" don't get it.  The other is from women like Sarah Jaffe and Melissia Gira Grant who argue they don't even care very much about Sandberg and her ilk, it's just what she has to offer to not useful for most women. Who is right? Is Sandberg  going to " . . jump-start the laggard feminist movement" or is she just another woman fighting (individually) to break the "glass ceiling"?
Walsh argues that it's not fair to blame Sandberg for the fact she doesn't address all social ills--and that the advice she gives is useful, albeit not for every woman. Hirshman suggests that Sandberg's plan has "all the hallmarks of success" including political framing, focus, "moral high ground", and will have weekly meetings (emphasis in the original). On the other hand Jaffe and Grant consider feminism to be an integral part of a movement for economic justice and glass ceilings to be beside the point. Grant points out that:
"To the extent that someone who benefits from that business culture espouses feminism, it will be ruthlessly friendly to the corporate enviroment in which it is exercised."
By all accounts, Sandberg is all about the corporate culture. Even leaving aside the issue of just how many women aspire to that corporate culture I would question the idea that women in positions of corporate power help other corporate women. This is a central tenet of Sandberg's "Lean In" philosophy, but is there any evidence to suggest that the actions or policies that Sandberg or her tech counterpart Marissa Mayer have helped any females at Facebook or Yahoo?  I don't think that there is, my guess (not having much knowledge of either company) that both work like any other tech company. Which is to say there is an emphasis on working patterns and characteristics which are in theory gender-neutral but frequently favor men.
While I don't like to suggest it is only mothers who are in need of progressive polices it is easy prism to view a company's value on a female employee, and society in general. Like any mother who considers herself a feminist I winced at the news that Mayer would take no maternity leave after the birth of her first child--and in case you thought that was a fluke she also ended telecommuting. As CEO Mayer can do what she likes but the obvious implications are that maternity leave is a luxury, as is work flexibility--most people would consider both of these integral to keeping mothers in the workplace. It's worth noting that 20 years after the Family Medical Leave Act--you remember the thing that was going to destroy American business--getting time off for family reasons (let alone getting paid for it which is the norm in the industrialized west) is still difficult and frequently at the whim of the employer. From what Walsh suggests Sandberg is very focused on what women can do to advance themselves, and suggests that that Sandberg " . . . would never face this kind of rage for writing a how-to-get-ahead book." I agree, because I think Sandberg did write that book but framed it as book to help all women. As Grant says, if the book had been framed as something 'by and for women in positions of corporate leadership' this conversation would not be happening. There is nothing wrong about writing a book to help ambitious women but what feminists like Grant and Jaffe object to is the idea that this is all there is, that more women on corporate boards and in business leadership will help most, if not all women.
Whether this is true or not it would appear to get TO that leadership position you need to be well, not like a woman.  Hirshman is explicit in this, explaining how women's lower position is a result of social polices and "self-limiting behaviors, which are entirely in the women's control". Hirshman goes on:

"In refusing to buy into the women naturally love their children more narrative, Sandberg wound up in the opposite corner from former State Department honcho Anne-Marie Slaughter, who quit her job to take care of her 14 year-old-son. . . . old lefty fantasies that men are going to tax themselves to pay for full-time day care and say women can make come of the change themselves."

This is awful on a couple different levels, most mothers, especially those with professional backgrounds   want to be able to work and be there for their children, and want to see changes in policies to make this happen. Women's choices are not always in their control, childbearing for example is safest and easiest when women are younger, probably before they are "established" professionally. Yes, I do expect that both men AND women will contribute to these changes, whether it be by taxes or (more likely) forcing corporations to bear some of the burden. Although much maligned by the working-class feminists I found Slaughter's story useful, because her story helped show how having women in positions of power does not help other women, at least not significantly. Having female boss did not significantly change the dynamic for her to keep her job, and she notes that all the men on the Supreme Court have families, the women do not. Most of the women who have served the President (Obama and Bush) do not have families. It's fine if women do not want to have families but where did it become an axiom that if you want to be a "successful" (re: an occupation that commands a high salary or high respect) woman you can't have children, men certainly to not have to make this choice (and if you do marry you better be to the right kind of man). Hirshman goes on in this vein, it is important be be focused only on getting women into leadership positions, this is "moral high ground" as opposed to  . . . well I won't pretend I understand what she is trying to get it here. She seems to see this push for women in leadership to be something everybody should be able to rally around, as opposed to, "choice" I guess? There are plenty of people in power who don't see this as moral high ground, but again the idea that getting women in leadership will automatically help other women is questionable.
Since she just wrote a book "Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution" I'm guessing Hirshman is supportive of Christine Quinn, a front-runner to be New York's first female and openly gay mayor. She is also on record for blocking paid-sick leave. This is moral high ground? This is helping women? To be fair other women are taking her to task for this but business does not want it, and guess who gives campaign contributions. (For a good description of how implementing a comprehensive sick-leave policy in a major city might look like see here.) Hirshman finishes with the final insult, the fact that in order to achieve this it depends on "weekly meetings" by which she really means women OF means getting together on this moral high ground to fix everything. Because "the revival of feminism" cannot come from ". . . the second-shift-working, overburdened, underemployed and often single parenting female masses . . .". Well maybe if they could get some paid sick days, paid maternity leave, and livable wages they might be able to go to meetings too.
In Jaffe's article she stresses that the majority of woman are these masses, they compose the majority of professions such as those in the public sector, teachers, home care workers, domestics and the like that are under attack from various quarters. For these women, the only way to get ahead is by organizing, and for many of these professions they are not considered worthy of consideration by mainstream feminists. As in almost any topic you can think of the mainstream emphasis will be on those with power, and those who look most like those in power. It is interesting to compare the dynamic of Walsh and Hirshman who insist that power can trickle down, versus Grant and Jaffe who insist it must come from below. Who is right? Well, where are the majority of women--up or down? Exactly what is the magic number of women in power which will result in a shift of the political dynamic to benefit all women? The fact is, if the overburdened masses get what they deserve--living wages, essential benefits--then ALL women will get them. It won't matter who is in charge.