Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why Feminists Fight With Each Other

By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet. Posted June 12, 2007.


An interview with the author of Sisterhood Interrupted provides historical context for contemporary feminist infighting: the overblown mommy wars, raunch feminists and their older, horrified detractors, and bloggers virtually ripping one another apart.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Courtney E. Martin

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Deborah Siegel -- writer, feminist and entrepreneur -- doesn't strike one as the type to dredge up old fights. Though she's 38, she looks about 18 as she sits happily in the grass at Union Square in a green and brown print dress, sandals thrown to the side and her legs curled under her, and tells me about the anticipation she feels about her new book coming out. Sisterhood Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild (Palgrave) is essentially a historical tour of the last 40 years of ideological, and sometimes sadly personal, battles for the soul of feminism.

Siegel is an apt guide as something of a renaissance feminist. With her Ph.D. in English and women's studies from the University of Wisconsin, she connects with academics. With her large network of New York-based feminist authors and nonprofit gurus, she connects with cultural critics and feminist celebrities. And with her Midwestern roots -- she was born and raised near Chicago -- she connects with the average girl.

Sisterhood Interrupted is the kind of book that will draw them all in, not just because it is ripe with controversy, but because it provides historical context for contemporary infighting: the overblown mommy wars, raunch feminists and their older, horrified detractors, and bloggers virtually ripping one another apart. Siegel and I took our own dialogue to the net, as the sun was too bright and Siegel had things to do.

Courtney Martin: What inspired you to write about feminist fighting?

Deborah Siegel: I wrote Sisterhood, Interrupted because I grew tired of hearing women -- both across and within different generations -- blame each other for feminism's failures. It started in the early 1990s when Katie Roiphe blamed 1970s-style feminism for turning women into victims, and it's going on today in the form of women accusing each other of being "faux feminists" on their blogs.

Of course, fights were hot during the late 1960s and 1970s, too. Today, we're repeating past battles without even realizing it. There's so much left to do -- it's such an unfinished revolution -- and I believe we long ago lost sight of our common ground.

Martin: Did you worry that opening old wounds would lead to more fragmentation in the movement instead of less?

Siegel: You can't talk about feminism and not talk about conflict. I wrote about the stands and splits within the popular women's movement across 40 years as someone seeking to understand them -- not to titillate readers, and not to air dirty laundry. For those solely interested in a catfight, my book is going to disappoint!

Martin: What do you hope older feminists get out of the book? Younger feminists?

Siegel: I wrote the book I wanted my younger cousin, my mother, and my great aunt to read: a road map to the feminist past for a younger generation and a guidebook to the present for women who have been calling for change for years.

I want women across the generations to understand that, in important ways, we're more alike than we are different. Older and younger feminists are often depicted at odds, with veterans cast as relics of a bygone era and younger feminists portrayed as unaware of or ungrateful for the work their mothers did. But younger women aren't abandoning the movement -- they're reinventing it. This is our legacy. Feminists have been creating, imagining and reinventing since day one.

Martin: You write, "Across the generations and at the heart of the battle to articulate feminism as a movement with mass appeal has been that singular tagline: The Personal is the Political." Why is this phrase still so damn powerful?


Siegel: The idea behind this truly brilliant slogan transformed the way Americans thought of the politics of private life. In the book I write about how these words launched a movement, then quickly morphed into a philosophy and a blueprint for action that meant different things depending on where you sat.

Today, we're smack dab in the middle of those conversations -- whether we realize it or not. But there's a new hitch. In the absence of a visible, organized, and powerful mass movement and in an era that's far more conservative and individualistic, younger women are less inclined to see our problems as shared.

We blame ourselves for not being able to be it all, when the problems are still systemic -- and the very notions of "it" and "all" are changing. Older women can point their fingers at us, the so-called "opt-out generation," all they want, but it's not getting anyone anywhere. Women across generations need to work together to bring the political, structural issues that shape our personal lives -- pay inequity, lack of affordable childcare and so much more-back on the national agenda.

Martin: How much of these fights centered around the question of whether feminism is a movement grounded in collective action, or an ideology pushed forward by very individual, often lifestyle-oriented, choices?

Siegel: In the early days of the second-wave women's movement -- and actually all the way through the 1990s -- feminists debated whether the best way to make serious, lasting change was by changing the world outside or changing ourselves. Today, we're debating the merits of "choice feminism" and "Sex-and-the-City"-style empowerment, but we're asking ourselves the same question: What needs transforming, our head or the world? Depending on your answer, feminism becomes a culture or a cause.

Martin: How much of these fights centered around the question of whether feminism should be radical, regardless of the loss in membership, or inclusive, regardless of the loss in progress?

Siegel: Betty Friedan worried that radical feminists were alienating suburban housewives with their talk of "orgasm politics" (cue raging vibrators). Radical feminists worried that the National Organization for Women was alienating twentysomething hip chicks with its "tame" emphasis on working within the system (cue respectable ladies picketing men's eating clubs).

We're having the same conversation again -- is sexual empowerment radical? Who is feminism leaving out? But it's differently inflected, as I show in the book, because the players, and the zeitgeist, have changed.

As for inclusivity, generation is the newest form of difference that we're dealing with now. In the back of Sisterhood, Interrupted there's a discussion guide, which I wrote with the hope that women of different ages might read and discuss the book together. If women who support gender parity in this country can't talk to each other, then feminism's grandchildren are going to pay the ultimate price.

Martin: Do you see these conflicts as fundamentally healthy for the movement, or are you calling for somewhat of a ceasefire?

Siegel: Ceasefire. Some conflicts are healthy. Others -- like the current round of intergenerational warfare -- are not.

Martin: Betty Friedan is a central character in this story. She sadly passed away last year. If you could have interviewed her, what would you have liked to ask her?

Siegel: I'd be so curious what she thought about the latest bruhaha around books like Leslie Bennetts' The Feminine Mistake, which has stay-at-home moms up in arms. You know, Friedan coined the term "the feminine mystique" to refer to ... well, you'll have to read the book! But I think it's interesting how things get replayed. You know, Friedan's third book, The Second Stage, was a call to restructure the workplace and to make this part of the American political and economic agenda -- something we have yet to really do, though we've certainly made enormous strides in the right direction.

Martin: What can those embroiled in the mommy wars learn from old examples of infighting?

Siegel: You know, I'm not a mom yet, but my best friend, who's an active professional and a mom, keeps telling me how peacefully SAHMs and moms who work outside the home coexist in her social circle. The media really has the whole "war" thing overblown. It's a great distraction from the real work that needs to get done (and that groups like MomsRising and the Mothers Movement Online are, thank goodness, now doing).

So what can we learn from the past? Not to believe the hype. Mainstream media have been historically lame about truthfully covering women's realities. Other lessons from the past: Read books like Adrienne Rich's Of Woman Born.

Martin: Why do you think these ideological battles tend to turn personal? Is this unique to women or do you think movement turmoil among men also devolves into character defamation?


Siegel: Definitely it happens among men. The early civil rights movement was as divided as the women's movement. I think it's more of a visionary thing than a gender thing. Visionaries can be difficult, impatient people by nature. Still, I think women are slightly better at going for the jugular when we take each other on.

Feminism is about passion, and the strength of conviction among women fighting for change is going to be intense. But just think how much more could be accomplished if that passion was unleashed solely at targets external to ourselves! We'd be unstoppable.

Martin: Who is the new "face of feminism," in your mind? Is it possible to have the same kind of leadership in a time of such intensified culture and hyperspeed technological and social change?


Siegel: You! Jessica Valenti and Samhita Mukhopadhyay over at Feministing and all the women at Third Wave Foundation, all those who started the REAL Hot 100, and all the others who are forming their own organizations across the country, speaking out on blogs, volunteering in record numbers, and using technology to reinvent radicalism in an era, as you say, marked by hyperspeed technological change.

Gen X and Y women are reinventing feminism in our own image -- and that image is more ideologically inclusive and racially diverse.

Martin: You write, "From its inception, the movement known as feminism has been one of the most internally fragmented and outwardly controversial -- perhaps because so many have so much to gain." What does the next generation of feminists have "to gain?"

Siegel: I think we get confused a lot by the illusion of progress -- or by the reality that there's been tremendous progress in some areas, but not in others. There are now 7.7 million women-owned businesses in the U.S., but we still make 77 cents to the male dollar.

Women now earn more than half of all bachelor's and master's degrees. But we're still only 16 percent of Congress, 2.6 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, and worldwide, we're still way poorer than men.

The dilemma of my generation and those behind me is that we're caught between the hope for a world that no longer degrades women and the reality of a culture that is degrading. We see a few women breaking into the upper echelons of power, and we think things are great. It's confusing to be a daughter of feminism in a culture only half transformed.

Martin: What else are you doing, besides publishing this book, to take this call for intergenerational understanding to the streets?

Siegel: In the fall, I'll be touring campuses and elsewhere as part of an intergenerational panel called "Sisterhood, Repaired." It's time that women of all ages talked and listened to one another instead of rehashing the same cliquish complaints in isolation. We want to reopen the dialogue about women's lives, power, entitlement and the future of feminism, but this time, with a cross-generational understanding. This conversation is also taking place through the Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership, where I'm currently a fellow, and where older and younger women mentor and learn from each other.

But I've also started offering women scholars and researchers -- which is the world I come from -- a course on blogging. The course is a kind of reverse mentoring. Because blogging, of course, is the new vehicle for consciousness raising. It's where the liveliest debates about feminism are happening, but it's also, for many, young and old, the new "CR."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: feminism

Courtney E. Martin is the author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body. You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com. Deborah Siegel's book -- Sisterhood Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild -- is out in stores now. You can read more about her work at www.deborahsiegel.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The State of Feminism
Posted by: Urstrly on Jun 12, 2007 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two things I learned recently seem to indicate the fix we've gotten into. A long-time activist just returned from a meeting where several factions had to iron out their differences to pass a bill against human trafficking. She told me that the most exhausting part was the meanness to one another of the women who should have been allies. She didn't know how to account for it, and neither do I.

Then I learned that a young professional woman I know with all kinds of credentials is taking pole-dancing lessons to seduce her hostile and abusive boy friend. She thinks it's good for her "self-esteem."

That sort of sums up the generational dilemma for me. We still don't know how to love ourselves and each other enough. I'm going to find this book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: Markson
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: Aureantes
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: Aureantes
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: The State of Feminism Posted by: VZEQICVA
"Interrupted" is way better than dead!
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 12, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't wait to read this book. I exited the urban lesbian community and, pretty much, the feminist movement in the mid-1980s, totally burned out by the "sex wars" and their spillover and backwash. The problem wasn't the intensity of the disagreements (though that could get pretty scary); it was the extreme, and almost instant, polarization that made thoughtful, non-bombastic discussion almost impossible. And it was happening even though we knew and understood what was going on. Joreen's classic essay on trashing appeared in the early 1970s; Joanna Russ's "Power and Helplessness in the Women's Movement" about a decade later. Knowledge and understanding weren't enough: over and over again it seemed that as soon as the emotional stakes got high enough, our evil twins took over and started running the show.

I've kept my hand in most of the years since, but from a distance. In some ways the political landscape looks like scorched earth: the feminist print network that grew up in the 1970s and flourished into the 1980s has been gutted, less by infighting than by economic and political realities that have devastated independent bookselling, publishing, and media in general. I started seriously losing touch with grass-roots feminism in the early 1990s: it wasn't happening where I lived, and for learning about grass-roots anything the corporate media are worse than useless. Lefty and liberal publications were more useful, but still limited. (A key lesson of the early "second wave" was "Freedom of the press belongs to her who owns the presses.")

In recent years I've been more hopeful. Blades of grass are appearing through the scorched earth: the Internet is giving us new opportunities to connect directly with each other, unmediated by non- and anti-feminist individuals and institutions. I think one of the huge mistakes feminists made in the late 1970s and early 1980s was in letting CR (consciousness raising) die out, so I like the idea that blogging might be a form of CR -- even if it often looks more like a soapbox derby, all talking and not much listening. Anyway, I'm off to order Sisterhood, Interrupted, and hoping it'll give me some ideas about how to keep the grass growing up through the bleakness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Consciousness raising Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Consciousness raising Posted by: suprmark
Missing...
Posted by: canadianlefty on Jun 12, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This looks like an interesting book, and the political project of creating greater unity among feminist women across difference is a very important one. But I can't believe that there was not a single mention in this article of the ways in which systemic differences in power and privilege amongst women is a crucial source of interruption for sisterhood (just as it is a powerful barrier to real, sustained, practical solidarity in all sorts of other political contexts as well, of course, and perhaps more severely so in male-dominated contexts). From my quick reading of it, for example, the term "women of colour" or some equivalent is not used once, and no reference is made to the division among women based on experience of racial oppression or white privilege. Class is omitted completely as well.

What's up with that?

-- S.N.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism's return to liberalism
Posted by: frosty86 on Jun 12, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Radical feminism is barely talked about in the academy these days and many activists don't identify with its politics. Beginning in the 1980s, and continuing through the 1990s and today, feminism in the academy became a very watered-down, postmodern, and apologist project. As MacKinnon pointed out, its main target was not patriarchy, white supremacy, or capitalism but rather radical feminism. The few radical feminists that were around the 1990s and that are around today were/are either ignored or dismissed. They are seen as being hopelessly naive and as having not developed a sophistocated analysis (I don't know about you, but when I read Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Audre Lorde, Kathleen Barry, Patricia Hill Collins, and Robin Morgan...I am constantly blown away by their analysis).

The highly-abstract, masculinist, postmodern theorizing that took over the academy, I think, played a role in starting third-wave feminism which is a complete return to liberalism. It's all about embracing femininity, which radical feminists had demonstrated to be oppressive, and was about respecting women's choices, even when the choices they made reinforced sexism and contributed to the oppression of others. Gail Dines was right to say that third-wave feminism and postmodern feminism are about absolute capitulation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hallo Frosty! Posted by: Blue Heron
» Correction Posted by: Markson
» Also, Maribelle... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Wow.. yet another sexist comment. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Women fight
Posted by: gistre on Jun 12, 2007 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because there's only room for one self-absorbed egotistical narcissist in any given situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women fight Posted by: VZEQICVA
Hey Frosty-
Posted by: H_H on Jun 12, 2007 9:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read Cathy MacKinnon's writings and, uh, surely you DO realize that she would happily support the Nazis if they were to promise to protect the safety of women just a teeensy little bit more. You DO realize that, right?

Of course you don't. You barely have two brain cells to rub together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey Frosty- Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Hey Frosty- Posted by: H_H
» RE: Hey Frosty- Posted by: Blue Heron
Remember Dworkin's "Right-Wing Women"?
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 13, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Long time ago, like in the early 1980s, Andrea Dworkin wrote a good book called Right-Wing Women. After interviewing many women, Dworkin concluded that right-wing women weren't all that different from feminists in their understanding of, and even their dissatisfaction with, the second-class status of women in this society. What distinguished the right-wing women from the feminists was their lack of belief that anything could be done about it. The feminists believed that change was possible and were willing to work for it. The right-wing women tended to think that their best hope lay in not rocking any boats and in seeking safety within a male-headed family.

In the many years since, I've worked and hung out with many, many women who don't call themselves feminists (at least not where any man can hear them [g]), and I think Dworkin was on to something important. But pessimism and hopelessness aren't confined to right-wing women. And in the absence of a visible and accessible grass-roots feminist movement (we have to be everywhere), individual solutions make sense.

It also makes sense that some feminists feel called upon to emphasize over and over again their devotion to men. Putting women first is risky business. It takes practice. It takes courage. And it takes a certain degree of optimism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Deep-fried brains Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Deep-fried brains Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Deep-fried brains Posted by: H_H
» Calling all delusionaries Posted by: hagwind
Feminist in-fighting is not the problem.
Posted by: dame on Jun 13, 2007 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even the book title plays to the media's idea that feminists are sitting around accusing each other of traitors to the movement. That is not the problem. Movements are not static -- they evolve and change and expand and contract with the interest, passion and needs of the times. See my post on my blog DameNation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminist in-fighting is not the problem.
Posted by: dame on Jun 13, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even the book title plays to the media's idea that feminists are sitting around accusing each other of being traitors to the movement. That is not the problem. Movements are not static -- they evolve and change and expand and contract with the interest, passion and needs of the times. See my post on my blog DameNation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very Instructive set of comments
Posted by: H_H on Jun 13, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some the above comment threads are excellent case studies as to how certain threads of "radical feminism" are incompatible with basic human freedom and demonstrate why an intelligent progressive movement would be well-advised to kick them out posthaste.

To wit: While they scream from the roof-tops “our bodies, our choice” for an abortion, once a woman chooses to have her body filmed while having sex she is presumed to be mentally incompetent and incapable of making a "choice" as she's been forced due to of poverty, childhood abuse, ANYTHING other than her own decision-making. Even if the woman is yelling from the top of her lungs that she's freely choosing to be in a porn film, radfems will claim the choice was never, ever hers and she is to be dismissed as a dupe or (when all else fails) mocked as a sellout.

This is not liberation for women. This is what happens when sexophobic neurotics try to prey on people's guilt and shame about sex. In fact, every time they claim men lust for "power and control" over women, this actually describes radical feminists quite well. Textbook example of projection, methinks.

At some point, radical femnists are going to have to come to terms with a contradiction which has become too large to not notice: Women are creatures with fully competent minds…except for when they make choices that don't agree with the Party Line.

Similarly, Liberals and moderate feminists are going to have to ask themselves why they're allowing these loonies to go unrepudiated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ahh, good ol' Beck. Posted by: H_H
WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED WHEN RADICAL FEMINISTS ARE SIMPLY GOOD 'CAT FIGHTERS?" N/M
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 13, 2007 1:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
N/C

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fem vs. Fem
Posted by: Gisele on Jun 13, 2007 7:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one will ever be more intolerant of a womans view, than another woman when they disagree on a subject. That's why they form agreeable groups, then point their fingers at others.

One day they'll actually stop asking "may I," and just go out and get what they want, do what they want, be who they really are - as soon as they realize they never had to ask for permission in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fem vs. Fem Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Have to disagree
Posted by: Cruella on Jun 15, 2007 7:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never fall out with other feminists. We disagree on the way various issues should be tackled, but the idea that it's aggressive angry disagreement doesn't reflect what I experience in my life. We love to have our ideas tested and challenged.

Or maybe we even disagree over whenther or not we disagree. If there's one thing we agree on it's the need to bring the positive message of feminism to the younger generation and dispel the false image of feminism as divided, unattractive and pointless. I recommend...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement