Within the space of a week, three stories were front page news—the deaths of Betty Friedan and Coretta Scott King and this newsflash from the New York Times: “Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities.” Talk about understatement, especially when the whopping lies of the Bush administration continue to pile up (Bush never met Abramoff, domestic spying is legal, no one… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (10)Page 1 of 1 pagesSo let’s remember what economic, political and social life was like for women in 1964. Want ads in the newspapers were segregated by gender, meaning that women simply could not apply for some jobs. Discrimination and admissions quotas to graduate and professional schools meant that women could be nurses but not doctors, teachers but not professors, secretaries but not managers or executives, paralegals but not lawyers...
Thank you. I remember much of this, and it is refreshing to see this as a follow up:
All of this has changed because of legislation and court cases: not ideas and discourse alone, but the law.
Reading of The Feminine Mystique changed the way I think and who I am. Without the subsequent changes in law, that would have been cruel awareness, indeed. I don’t want to downplay the importance of grassroots consciousness raising----I believe that such a movement could do wonders for problems of sexism that remain (men need to start supporting each other, women need to get real about how they treat each other), and for racism in the U.S. But if structural change doesn’t follow, then the awareness will just melt away and torment minds.
That’s why I’m sending money to the ACLU. This nation is built on law, and whatever you think about lawyers, if we don’t have lawyers fighting for freedom and equality, we don’t have a chance.
These women were great and are due the honor they have received (except for having four or five presidents at their funerals---puleeze). But they fought on their path in their time. They didn’t follow a cookbook. We must fight on our path in our time and find our own ways of doing battle. The revolution is not a rerun, and civil rights were not won with folk songs and tie-die.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 27, 2006 at 1:39 PM “We must fight on our path in our time and find our own ways of doing battle. The revolution is not a rerun, and civil rights were not won with folk songs and tie-die.”
Beautifully phrased, wiley, gracias.
One year after Friedan published her book, my mother became “single” when my dad left the house, and she suddenly had to raise me and my brother alone. I think it’s safe to say about her, now 12 years after her own death, that my mother’s thinking processes in 1965 were about as far away from “feminist” as could be imagined. She and I spoke many times about how much she changed from then until my brother and I were self-sustaining. Her perceptions and understandings became so much altered that she said (frequently), “I was another person then.”
The civil rights leaders of that era, as well as the feminists, can be jointly credited with popularizing what I consider a pivotal idea: You do not have to accept the strictures and underestimations that others may try to lay upon you. Your worth is not defined by whether they accept or respect you. Your worth is inherent, and your respectability is something you create in yourself.
For people like my mother, who was raised believing that it is others’ job to define your worth according to the roles appropriate to your station and your ability to fill them, these were revolutionary ideas indeed. And my mom was no revolutionary, I assure you! The fact that I recall “The Feminine Mystique” on her bookshelf represents a big departure for her from the ideas she imbibed during her own childhood.
Susan Douglas is of course perfectly correct to note the role of law in either upholding or damaging the sense of worth and the quality of life among those who have been marginalized, whether they’re members of minorities or, in the case of women, the majority who has been treated like a minority.
But at the level of the person herself or himself, I think the turning point is when those ideas I mention above take root, more so than a change in the law. Those ideas allowed a single mom with a severely constrained understanding of “womanhood” to alter her view of herself and single-handedly help two rowdy boys grow up and get a university education, while refusing to latch onto the nearest man to make these things possible (actually, considering the prejudices about “easy” divorced women in the ‘60s and ‘70s, it’s little wonder she didn’t re-marry; her luck with men was pretty dismal). She retired at the top of her game and started a second life in the rural South as a farmer until her death.
Had she stuck with “categorical” thinking, fitting the mold that her upbringing prepared her for, she would not have succeeded at or even attempted the things that eventually stood out as the high points of her life.
Many people enjoy lampooning the 1960s, as though the transformations that accelerated at that time were either detrimental, or are now “done already” and therefore not worth the attention. You could easily find malignant self-indulgence, I admit. But there is a foundational idea of appreciating and insisting upon one’s own worthiness, regardless of customary preconceptions, that also goes back to that time. Despite the attention that the self-indulgent ones get when we hear of that era these days, there was also a great deal of benefit and excellent personal examples derived from those events. We should not forget that fact, and the passing of two women who devoted their lives to upholding a higher view for men and women to aspire to is a suitable occasion for our remembrance.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 28, 2006 at 4:30 AM Clearly, change happens on many levels (or there wouldn’t be enough momentum for change), but your story reminds me of an important point about the third wave of feminism. Many people have the misconception that women started going to work because feminists convinced them that they weren’t full members of society and/or independent without jobs.
Fact is, the family wage began to end in the mid to late fifties and women were forced to go to work. Of course, poor women often had to work even before them, but middle class women were being forced into the workforce in droves and the conditions they worked in and the abuses heaped on them were horrible. They were still required to fulfill all their other gender roles as well.
With the breaking down of the family wage, the age of the bachelor arrived, and women also had to get jobs because it was hard to find a husband.
It was the shared experiences of exploitation and gender obligations that were becoming maladapted and overwhelming while women were still being held personally to gender definitions based on a different economic and social structure that led women to work together in conscous raising groups and to reexamine their own assumptions about who they were. Their were many other factors as well, but somehow our society gives the impression that feminists sent women out into the work force and women didn’t need to work or didn’t really want to.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 1, 2006 at 3:08 AM the age of the bachelor arrived
bachelor , noun
1. An unmarried man.
2. A person who has completed the undergraduate curriculum of a college or university and holds a bachelor’s degree.
3. A male animal that does not mate during the breeding season, especially a young male fur seal kept from the breeding territory by older males.
4. A young knight in the service of another knight in feudal times... and I am living it . Well, three of them at least.
What do they call a female bachelor?
But if I were to marry and have children I would be happy to be the stay at home dad while mom goes to work kind of guy. That would be just fine.
Posted by David in Canada on Mar 1, 2006 at 2:01 PM In the old days, they were called spinsters. Then they got hip with bachelorette. To insecure married women, the term was slut---still is.
So, you’re saying that you’re not a young fur seal kept from the breeding territory by older males? Be completely honest, dave.
The bachelor thing is really interesting. Until the bachelor age arrived, women did most of the shopping for the men in their lives. American men have pretty much always had simple uniforms. Concern for finery was considered effete and possible grounds for a beating in fifties American male culture.
The large group of unmarried men, however, became a hot demographic and were groomed as a consumer market. The initial role of Playboy magazine (like most magazines) was to sell products. The babe in the middle was a way for men to buy a magazine featuring fancy watches, and silk ties and deny that they were gay, or to be more fair---to assert their heterosexuality.
James Bond was the pinnacle of bachelordom.
Now, most Americans have no idea that men ever worried about people wondering if they were gay because they talk about clothes and shoes. Though American men do still wear “salmon” and “shrimp” colored shirts that are suspiciously “pink”.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 1, 2006 at 10:11 PM So, you’re saying that you’re not a young fur seal kept from the breeding territory by older males?
Actually, I dropped out of college so I don’t have a degree. I’m sure I have some characteristics in common with young fur seals.
Posted by David in Canada on Mar 2, 2006 at 1:47 AM Not too many characteristics, I hope. Look at this:
In June, male seals, called bulls, compete to establish breeding territories before the females, or cows, arrive on the beaches. Each bull gradually acquires a harem of up to forty cows.
These bastard bulls have harems, for crying out loud, and they won’t share one female with a young male, who is probably half crazy with hormones. Jiminy, these runts have to stand around acting like nothing’s happening while a host of orgies are in progress? These seals have got to have some serious social problems.
Male and female seals come together only during breeding season. There used to be a native tribe in the region now called “Texas” that lived the same way. They got together once a year. Makes you wonder, huh?
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 2, 2006 at 3:32 PM Fortunately, I am not a bull seal, yet, so I don’t have to establish a territory or deal with a harem.
Male and female seals come together only during breeding season.
Sounds like a good idea to me ; )
Posted by David in Canada on Mar 3, 2006 at 10:51 AM Kinda, eeking back on topic here, but do we need leaders like the leaders of the civil rights movement now? Can we even support them? The Civil Rights movement built for years before the marches and protests began, people networked and had community. We don’t. We can’t just make one up out of whole cloth either.
There has been a conversation going on on a Socrates board for over year on the question “what is community”. John Gatto distinguished it from ‘networks’. We need networks too. But “community”? Can we advance as millions of individuals? It may be possible.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 3, 2006 at 9:04 PM Kudos to Sue Douglas for her brilliant article and for reminding us of the horrible nature of women’s oppression in the days before TItle VII and the “Movement.” Often the key to the extent of a society’s civility is the treatment of women. Current issues in the Middle East have certainly highlighted this among other things. Women’s rights are once again endangered by the drive toward theocracy and the conservative political mood. Progressives must join together to end this threat and restore the acceptibility of gender equality.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 4, 2006 at 10:23 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
