So on this site, perhaps not surprisingly, the words feminism and feminist get tossed around quite a bit. People drop it in group topics, in group posts, in blogs, videos, even descriptions of photographs or videos. Feminism is on the minds and tongues of quite a few people around these parts and yet sometimes I find myself in frustration or quandary over the usage of the term and the understanding thereof. To me what is apparent is that "feminism" has become a catch-all phrase to specify "women fighting against the oppressive patriarchy." Given that definition was once somewhat out of vogue, and is now being revitalized in a disturbing fashion, I feel some clarification is needed.
So feminism did not just drop out of the wood work. The theoretical framework came up in the late nineteenth century and spread from France, to Germany, to England, and then ultimately to the United States. Feminism went world wide with relative speed and now feminist movements can be found everywhere from the center of your very own city to villages in pre-industrial and current industrializing nations. So the question to ask any theory is simple: What is the purpose?
For feminism the question is a bit more complicated to answer than other theoretical frames. Marxism can be summed up in the word "capitalism" to do some injustice to the theory. Colonialism is self-explanatory, post(para)-colonialism is the current match that does some very similar, and some very different, things. So what makes feminism so different from, say, Freudian psychology? Well feminism has gone through, and is still going through, waves that create a metamorphosis. The theory itself is constantly evolving to respond to changing world conditions and to past movements within itself. Why? Because feminism, similar to race theory, is a tool being used to hit a constantly shifting target.
So if there's multiple waves how many are there? Generally the current total is considered to be three. Three waves. What distinguishes these waves beyond the time period of their motions? Various developments in social structures, power paradigms, and short-comings of past waves. So let's get started.
Wave one feminism is marked by the Suffrage movement. The bulk effort was being performed in what today are the major post-industrialized nations and led primarily towards voting rights, although efforts were made to break through the employment barriers faced by women. Concern wasn't for all women during wave one. At this point we're talking about middle and upper class, predominately white, predominately heterosexual, women. Keep in mind this is predating the Civil Rights movement and thus the concern was gaining rights for white women that were previously withheld for white men. The crowning achievement of wave one can be understood to be the right to vote. In the work-place there were still sexist laws set up and problematic social structures and power paradigms that prevented the advancement of women, including the white heterosexual women who spoke the loudest.
Wave two feminism came sweeping in during the 60s to address short-comings of wave one. Let's go with Carol Hanisch to give a popular slogan for wave two, "The personal is political." So what does this mean? Women who perform self-exploration discover the ways that the power dynamics of the political and social structures effect them personally. This expands the concerns of feminism from picking away at the power structure to forming a cohesive whole. Once again a problem of categories enters the mix in the second wave. Not all women are as inherently equal as other women. White women were preoccupied with the concerns of white women, black women focused on black women, lesbians focused on lesbians although this particular category was slower in growth than the other two. The distinctions can be broken primarily on lines of race, sexuality, and class. What was most universal was the concept of forming a "girl's club" to battle back against the imbedded power of the "boy's club." Another way to consider this is separate groups of women fighting against the perceived tyranny of the patriarchy.
We need to pause for a moment here. "Patriarchy" is a problematic term theoretically during the evolution of second wave feminism. The power paradigm maintained by men became the central focus of the term. So what's problematic about this pointed assault on the concept of the patriarchy? It is simple, though perhaps difficult to come to grips with for the vast majority of feminist who still identify with wave two. Replacing the "patriarchy" with a "matriarchy" changes very little. Now here me out before vitriol pours through the veins. Replacing one power structure defined by biological sex with another power system defined by biological sex does not solve problems. A matriarchy is just as problematic as a patriarchy. Replacing the "boy's club" with the "girl's club" does not solve issues, it only perpetuates them under a slightly different guise.
So the problem with wave two feminism was not a demand for greater equality and push to realize that. Such is perfectly acceptable and noble, and what has attracted many towards feminism as a theoretical model. The problem was over-looking the fact that shifting power from one sex to another would not advance equality but simply switch who was in a dominant position in the social structure. Let alone another dominate problem being the pervasive segregation of women within the movement along several categorical lines. And thus enters wave three feminism in the 80s.
Wave three feminism persists through today though there is a continual evolution that we'll get to in a moment. Now feminism challenges past concepts that distanced wave two feminism from the general social structures. Where wave one and two feminism had categorical separations imbedded within the movement this newest addition to the series seeks to dissolve those differences. Thus white, heterosexual, upper-class women share concerns with black, homosexual, lower class women (just to give an example and not to assume that all white women are upper class and heterosexual and not all black women are homosexual and lower class). This creates a broader network of women working together to gain rights as equal people. The most important term that evolves is "people." Wave three is also the version of feminism most open to men. Wave one feminism was pre-dominantly open to women. Wave two feminism was not very interested in the intellectual support of men given the "smash the patriarchy!" mentality that permeated the theory. Wave three feminism recognizes the importance of creating a broad community that supports the continued progression of gaining equality. What is the purpose of this equality? Not to "destroy" the patriarchy, which has been accepted as an impossible illusion to "destroy," the purpose has become to "dissolve" the importance of sex within the power structure. This dissolution allows for a dismantling of sex based categories in social structure, political structure, and the various paradigms of power. Ideally the more feminism expands, the more inclusive the theory becomes, the more trouble detractors have pushing back against the model.
So where do we feminist fall now? A muddled and complicated question. Most are third wave feminist, striving to create a greater community of like-minded, socially progressive, individuals. There is also a somewhat worrying return to second wave feminism where the desire is to revitalize the concept of the patriarchy and then to demolish it. This is worrying given the shift of many, though hardly the majority, returning to idea of creating the "girl's club" to battle back against the "boy's club." Sexually defined battles are never a good way to go, thus the worrying aspect. There is also a highly progressive newer evolution of feminism that has the power to become the forth wave. Last I read into this newest form the theoretical model was referred to as "relational feminism." This movement strives to expand the community that third wave started from being regional to global. A popular catch phrase in this structure echoes the coinage of Hanisch, "The personal is global." In this form the feminist striving for realistic concepts of beauty in the social structure is equally as important as feminist battling international sex-slave trafficking or the mutilation of female genitalia (which comes in different forms from deeply imbedded cultural traditions to ways of actively oppressing women). Relational feminism also strives to build bridges of communication and understanding between different cultures and geographical regions. A fair example is feminists in the United States fighting against hijabs while Muslim women fight to maintain their veils. That cultural wall is what is sought to be over-come, so the western feminists understand the benefits that "non-western" feminists see in what is assumed to be sexual oppression. Ask yourself, within this example, if you ever considered the benefits of the hijab? Many women claim to find empowerment with it because they are able to de-sexualize themselves and be judged on qualities such as intelligence, ability, and fluency.
I am most concerned with posting this because many people seem to have very short-sighted versions of what being a "feminist" means. Feminism is not about destroy, smashing, or tearing down any pre-existing power structure. Instead the theoretical model has evolved to slowly push the paradigm into accepting women regardless of sexuality, race, creed, or gender identification. What's the difference? One mode encourages scraping everything to reconstruct the concept of power without the "male gaze" controlling the formation of the structure. The other mode encourages altering the structure to dissolve the influence of male-centric concepts of power. In order to alter the structure the community of feminists must expand to first include all women and secondly to encourage the intellectual, emotional, and professional support of men. Regression into second wave ideals is damaging and becoming increasingly pervasive in the United States, I have my assumptions as to why but that is a purely political discussion better reserved for another day. Third wave and relational feminism is what must be supported by all feminists to continue to advance the theoretical model. Like with anything else progression equals gain, regression equals loss.
