Is today's feminism as important as the feminism of times before?

As a woman, it is hard to believe such simple things were denied to us barely 100 years ago. In The declaration of Sentiments, we realize not only how limited we were by politics, but by men.  The fact that women were stripped of responsibility in the eyes of the law is one of the most degrading points in the reading, and something we should look back on with a bitter taste in our mouths.

Looking at all three of the readings, we see different viewpoints from different women in society. In "Ain't I a Woman?" the author touches on what we started discussing in class on Tuesday, the fact that Women of Color needed and wanted different things out of the Feminist Movements. Whereas in the other two readings we see strong groundbreaking women who are demanding rights. In the article by Sojouner Truth, we realize that although the rights of women are in mind, to her, more important matters like living free also plague her speech.  What we can see from these initial wave feminist articles is belief,  and a sense of determination. These women believe in each other, and although they are not all fighting for exactly the same thing they are determined to make progress. These inspirational women show that they are tired of being oppressed, and are willing to fight for an end to slavery, as well as more rights for women.

When we look at all the situations where women are denied proper rights in society we find a very appropriate quote in The declaration of Sentiments "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyrranny over her." We know man used to dominate over a woman, and of course things have changed drastically.... But do men still control us? From the previous readings there are arguements about the "Liberation" women are getting from this sex consumed wave of feminism. Do we do it for men? Can the feminists of today really be classified in the same group as the ones who have come before? Is the cause as important as the olden days, and more importantly, is what we are doing today for the right reasons? Is this feminism today truly for the betterment of women?

What is Feminism?

In "The Future That Never Happened", Levy points out that there are clearly many different types and degrees of feminism, each ranging from completely different worldviews, such as those of Hugh Hefner and Susan Brownmiller, to different attitudes on more specific issues such as pornography and sex. Though I was a bit surprised to hear Hugh Hefner call himself a feminist based on the generally constructed definition of the term, considering that his industry is based on the objectification of women, if we considered feminism to be a rejection of the conventional role of women during the 1960s then perhaps his title has some validity. However, the feminism that Betty Friedan explains in "The Feminine Mystique" is much more than simply getting women out of the kitchen, but rather "a total transfiguration of society - politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics" (Levy, 48). Thus because this second-wave of feminism, which Betty Friedan also advocated in "The Feminine Mystique" looked to change so many aspects of society, it was bound to attract many different opinions and perspectives. But what is feminism ultimately trying to achieve? Levy explains and I believe Friedan would agree that a very important part of the women's liberation movement was women's sexual pleasure which probably explains Hefner's title as a feminist given his attempts to liberate a woman's opportunities to express herself sexually. However, here we begin to see a problem because is it considered liberating and empowering for women to wear very revealing clothing and come off as happy, or is it degrading and simply objectifying women? Going back to our discussion last week about Girls Gone Wild and women who embrace this "raunch culture", I think that while it may be true that women somehow feel empowered by expressing themselves through their bodies, the fact remains the motive behind such an expression is to sexually gratify men, thus there seems to be an absence of gender equality in these expressions whether it's through stripping, pornography, or just drunkenly posing for an Girls Gone Wild cameraman. Yet as Levy explains, feminism, especially during this second-wave, looked to change gender roles in all aspects of society, starting in the bedroom.

Female Chauvinist Pigs: Reprogramming Society

It was very interesting reading the first chapter of Female Chauvinist Pigs from a female athlete's point of view. Levy states, "If you really believed you were both sexy and athletic, wouldn't it be enough to play your sport with your flawless body and your face gripped with passion in front of the eyes of the world" (44). Rather than embracing their talents and athletic capabilities that most human beings don't have, Levy points out that these Olympic athletes have sacrificed their hard work on the court so they are not accepted based on the merits of their athletic performance, rather their appearance in magazines like "Playboy," in order to play into the generally accepted definitions of "sexy" or "beautiful" that society has decided upon.

Like in Neuborne's article, men and women alike have been "programmed" to think that women can't be sexy and smart, or beautiful and athletic, or gorgeous and opinionated. This programming has made way for raunch cultural phenomena such as Girls Gone Wild and Playboy -- multi-million dollar corporations that profit at the expense of the dignity of women. The inherent problem is not that these corporations exist, but that women play directly into their hands -- they want to be seen as "sexy" or "beautiful" so they try to get featured, or at the very least, they try to emulate what they see in the media. The only plausible way to reverse this trend is to try and deprogram the old way of thinking, and "reprogram" society and make men and women realize that women do not have to fit one single type of beauty; a woman can be a multitude of things and have many different abilities and talents, and at the end of the day still be seen as beautiful -- such qualities are not mutually exclusive; instead, as Levy states, we should se them as "mutually inclusive" so that characteristics like athleticism are no longer seen at odds with beings sexy. If we change the way we think, we can change the way women are portrayed in everyday life.