"The World has lost its soul, and I my sex", Germaine Greer (The Female Eunuch (1)).
Anyone like to know why I have picked this picture? For that matter, anyone know who she is? Well, folks, allow me to introduce you to Frida Kahlo, famous Mexican surrealist artist; wife of the equally talented and acclaimed painter, Diego Riveira; feminist icon, and political and social activist. Quite a feat for a woman who died prematurely, aged only 47 years (2).
"What is she doing here?", you might ask. "Is the link feminism?"
Well, I'll get to answering that, in a roundabout way...
Let's start here. Frida represents something special to me. Something dear. Something close to my heart. She represents beauty. Now, please don't make any mistake whatsoever as to my meaning. I suspect that some of you are looking at the image askance, and perhaps thinking, "What a peculiar woman!" I don't doubt that others may go further. After all, I would assume that, based on looks alone, Ms. Kahlo is not everyone's "cup of tea"!
Frida Kahlo represents the decidedly unconventional, both in appearance, and in lifestyle. It is this that I admire about her. To me, her beauty is more than the mere "skin deep". The beauty of Frida Kahlo is multidimensional, coming; or should I say, pouring forth; from within, to shape the without. Frida Kahlo's type of beauty is hard to define, in that it transcends our conventional notions. Hers is a beauty born of a passionate nature, of a quick intellect and strong will. Hers is a beauty that comes from determination, from perseverence, from the overcoming of apparently insurmountable obstacles. Hers is a vivacity, a certain "joie de vivre", even in the face of adversity. When I look at trhis image of Frida Kahlo, I see personality in her face, in her look. I see the strength of character, I see the passion, I see the creativity. There is something about the woman, the way she presents herself, that is indomitable.
Yet, I also see something else; something quite in contrast. I see wistful. I see enigmatic. I see a fragile, delicate butterfly. True, Frida Kahlo challenges social conventions, with her colourful, flamboyant, sometimes almost tribal, dress. But there is a woman behind the clothes, the hair, the make-up. This woman shines through, the nuances of her personality perfectly embodied in the choice of attire.
Frida Kahlo's look is more than just a look, it is Frida Kahlo. Throughout her brief life, this woman lived with a zest, and a passion. She suffered lifelong health problems, resulting predominantly from a terrible accident in which she was involved, when aged only 18. Frida was, at the time of her accident, a passenger on a bus, which collided with a tram/trolley car. During the accident, the date of which was September 17th, 1925, Frida sustained multiple injuries; these included a broken collarbone, broken ribs, fractured spinal column, broken pelvis, eleven fractures in her right leg, a diclocated shoulder, and a crushed and dislocated right foot. This; along with the fact that Frida contracted Polio when aged 6; left her with a right leg thinner than the left, and the lifelong trauma of undergoing multiple surgeries. Frida did eventually learn to walk again, but was left with extensive damage to her body. Due to her injuries; including the fact that during the accident, her abdomen and uterus had been pierced by an iron handrail; Frida Kahlo was left with reproductive problems, chronic pain, and was prone to periodic "relapses" (3).
Frida hid the effects of her accident, and her thinner right leg, by wearing long, brightly-coloured skirts, and flowing dresses. It appears that her choice of clothing was deliberate, as was the way she styled her hair, and accessorised an outfit. Frida's look hearkens back to the peasant outfits of her Amerindian ancestors, whilst at the same time making a contemporary statement about her creativity and artistic flair. Her choice of bright, exotic colours is perhaps a nod in the direction of her native Mexican scenery. Frida Kahlo dresses to reflect her heritage, her culture, and her country of birth. She dresses to reflect her personal history - to conceal the scars of her surgery. She dresses to reflect her personality, her passion, her individuality.
"All very well and good", you may say, "but what's this got to do with feminism, or post-feminism... or the title of this piece, for that matter?" Now, this is where I ask you to begin your conjecture...
Feminism, in its early days, sought to advocate women's rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality with men. For far too long, women had been seen as "second class citizens". Hundreds of thousands of years of "society" have lead to our current position. Hundreds of thousands of years of beliefs, ideologies, thoughts, concepts. We carry with us the legacy of this past. Kid yourselves not!
Historically, women have for many years been the "underdogs". Sadly, this appears to have come about as a result of what might be construed as positive developments - the move to a more orderly, paternalistic society; such as that seen in ancient Rome; and the switch from "pagan" to Christianized religious belief in the West (4). Alas, the benefits were reaped predominantly by men. Women lost power, status, and often the physical right to hold land or property, run businesses, and inherit titles. Lineages passed often from male to male heir, bypassing female offspring (or, rather, cutting them out altogether) - hence the law of "Primogeniture", which even today, is often employed within the echelons of "high society", and which ensures that only firstborn sons inherit a family title. Look to our British Royal Family for a perfect example of this - only recently were the inheritence rules altered. The "Perth Agreement", of October 2011, concerns changes to the royal succession laws in 16 Commonwealth realms, which were agreed to by heads of state (Prime Ministers/Presidents). The alterations would replace male preference primogeniture - under which sons take preference over daughters in lines of succession - with absolute primogeniture, meaning that the firstborn would succeed to the Throne, irrespective of gender (5).
The first feminists sought to secure the same rights for women as for men. They wanted women to be able to vote, to be able to have careers, to be free to dress as they chose, to be able to indulge in pastimes such as sport... in brief, to live they lives that they, and not other people, chose. These were early feminists, many of whom had grown up during a time when women did not have careers. When women were forced to stay at home and raise children. When women were seen as subordinate to men - as mere "homemakers" and "housewives". When women who were not dressed "properly" in corsets, crinolines, long skirts, bustles, bonnets, gloves were seen as inappropriately louche, or even lascivious... when to make a "fashion faux-pas" was seen as social suicide. The women of the era in which many early feminists were raised did not vote. They rarely owned property in their own right. They could not go out and earn a respectable living; consequently they had to rely on men (their husbands, fathers, brothers) to financially support them. They could not purchase belongings in their own right. Rather, they were belongings. Having few, or no, rights of their own, they existed as the "possessions" of men. Early feminists sought to put an end to this.
I suspect that there are many of us so-called "modern" women of today who would find it difficult to imagine being in the position that I have described above. We take for granted the fact that women do have rights. Today's women are able to go to work, or to stay at home as housewives, depending upon choice and circumstance. They are free to vote. They are able to receive an education. Today's women can purchase property, and personal possessions, in their own right. They can dress in skirts, blouses, suits, dresses, trousers, jumpers... they have a choice of attire that was once unimaginable. Today's women can remain single, date casually, live with a partner (male or female co-habitant), marry, divorce... The lifestyle permutations are endless.
So, what surprises me is what women are now doing with this hard-won freedom. This is why I ask my question as to whether today's women are the "last post of feminism". Allow me to elaborate...
It is a given that feminism, like women, moves on. It grows, and changes. It evolves. Just as our society has changed, so have women, and so has feminism. The birth of feminism occurred at a specific point in time, and in response to a specific set of social circumstances. Feminism, in this sense, could be considered PHENOMENOLOGICAL (6). It cannot be divorced from the reality of the society in which we live; for we, as human beings, create that society all about us. We are responsible for its existence.
The first feminists came into being because they wished to say something important about the society in which they lived - they wished to react against this society. Since their time, the society - indeed the culture - in which we live has changed. Women have gained important rights (whether we consider these to have been won for them by the first feminists, or not). Feminism, therefore, changed too; to take account of the new roles available to women; to keep up with the ways in which women themselves were changing...
Authors often talk of three waves of feminism. Clearly, the first was that early feminism described above. This was connected with the fight for women's equal rights with men, and was closely tied in to the early liberal women's rights movement and socialist feminism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. We must remember that across Europe and America, this was a period of great flux, and disruption of society. The Industrial Revolution had brought with it immense changes to the world of work, whilst radical developments in fields such as Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, Science, Education and the like were to revolutionise the way in which many people (certainly those who wished to consider themselves enlightened!) thought, and viewed the world about them. Women wanted access to employment, to education... in short, to sources of power and prosperity formerly the preserve of men.
The second wave of feminism was that which took place predominantly from the 1960s to the early 1990s.
This type of feminism defined itself via comparison of women's places in society with those of other "oppressed" groups such as ethnic minorities, disabled people, gays and lesbians. Just as these other stigmatised and often discriminated-against groups of people sought to find a better place for themselves within society - to increase their standing - so did women via the second wave of feminism.This wave of feminism refers mostly to radical feminism and to the women's liberation movement, and was very much concerned with women from ethnic minorities as well as from "Third World" countries.
I would argue that both of the aforementioned waves of feminism were extremely powerful and liberating movements. They gave voices to women - voices that had previously gone unheard.
So, what of the third wave?
Well, that's the one I have a problem with!
The third wave of feminism (if that's what we can call it!) is the feminism of the "Grrl". "Born with the privileges that first- and second-wave feminists fought for, third-wave feminists generally see themselves as capable, strong and assertive social agents: "The Third wave is buoyed by the confidence of having more opportunities and less sexism" (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000, p.83). (7). This style of feminism has much to do with girl bands, modern technologies, and reclamation of the word "girl". It attempts to appeal to a younger generation, or to the "young at heart" by being "self-assertive", "edgy" and "playful" (all terms used by third-wave feminists, and not just by myself).
This third wave has much to say for itself, and this is where I think it falls down. It is the proverbial "all mouth and no trousers". (Ironic, really, for a feminist movement!). Third wave feminists claim to have simultaneously criticised sexist language, whilst appropriating for themselves the use of once-derogatory terms. They claim to have coined new self-celebratory words, and ways of communicating.
Big claims! So, let's look at what's actually going on...
I have major reasons for taking issue with so-called “modern feminism”. Forget all the old arguments about political, economic and social equality. The early feminists may have fought for women’s rights on such bases, but today, we take for granted that we do have these rights. And THIS is my point. Women now take for granted what was once hard won. The modern feminists appear to have forgotten completely what it was like to have nothing, and to have to fight for rights. They are complacent!
Personally, I cannot say whether women are yet equal to men, in a wide number of ways. (Many of us are acutely aware that there remains the so-called "glass ceiling" with respect to women's wages.) However, I cannot also say whether the reason for this lies with men, or with WOMEN THEMSELVES.
Modern women can vote, if they so choose. They take this fact for granted. Very few women (certainly the ones I know) are politically aware, or astute. Asked why they vote for the party they vote for, and they give VERY FLIMSY ANSWERS, such as “oh, my husband votes for them, so I do too”, or “we always voted for…”. They do not put much thought, if any, into their choice of candidate or political party, and all too often, they show that they can be EASILY INFLUENCED by somebody else’s choice.
Is this what early feminists fought for? I doubt it! Such complacency, ignorance and susceptibility were present in women long before the feminist movement ever sought to challenge them. If this is how we choose now to behave, then why should feminists ever have bothered?!
Modern women can also go out to work, get an education, and dress however they like. So, why is it that so many choose to give up on this? Just like the corseted and male-dominated “housewife” of the pre-feminist Victorian era, many of today’s women stay chained to the kitchen sink, popping out kids, and dependent on husbands or partners for an income. The irony is, however, that unlike their Victorian counterparts – today's women choose this. THEY MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO DO IT!
The same women also make conscious choices about the way they dress – TO IMPRESS MEN! Women who would be offended if you were to openly call them “trophy wives”, or “bimbos” or whatever, CHOOSE to dress in ways that make them look just like what they profess to despise. Even though they claim to dress to suit themselves, the clothes they don – short skirts, high heels, skimpy cleavage-revealing tops – ALL SEND OUT THE WRONG SIGNAL TO MEN. They signal “desperate” and “available”. Yet these same women bleat on about how unfair society is to women, and how they don’t get taken seriously!
It is hard for me to understand how the woman, free to choose, decides to limit her freedom all over again. Free to dress as she likes, the woman chooses to dress to suit men's desires! Free to get an education, or hold down a top job, the woman chooses to stay reliant upon a spouse, and stuck at home! Free to live independently, the woman chooses to make herself dependent again! Yes, I accept that people are all different, and that what one person wants out of life may not be the same as for another... but still? To have freedom of choice, and to choose self-limitation!
I just cannot get into the heads of such women. Often, I truly wonder if there is actually anything at all in there! It is as though the bird, freed from its cage, chooses willingly to return there... almost as though the cage has become some sort of familiar comfort zone. IS THIS WHAT PSYCHOLOGISTS TERM "LEARNED HELPLESSNESS"? Are we to believe that women have become so used to being "dominated" by men - so used to being told how to think, how to act - that some women cannot imagine anything else? Cannot cope with anything else?
Just look at the ways modern women, some of whom claim to be feminists, or acting in the name of feminism, demean themselves….
1. The sex industry. Please don’t try telling me that becoming a female stripper or pole dancer is “feminist” and gives “power over men”. I’ve rarely heard such bull****!
2. Glamour models. THIS goes without saying!
3. Bad dress sense – fake tan, orange skin, tacky hair extensions, skimpy clothes, false nails… a whole range of unnecessary TAT, just to impress MEN!
4. “Girl power”! Oh, come on! A meaningless slogan!
5. Binge drinking and associated behaviour (e.g. getting tits out). Do these sort of cringe-worthy antics REALLY give equality with blokes? And, if so, is this REALLY the sort of equality women want?
6. Cosmetic surgery. Do we truly need breast enlargement, liposuction and the like? Why on earth should women feel the need to alter their bodies to satisfy a stereotype designed by MEN? Women do NOT have “cartoon” bodies, or bodies like “Barbie Dolls” and it is desperately sad that they should feel the need to cosmetically alter their bodies to look like this.
7. Believing that pole dancer, lap dancer, stripper, topless model, girl group member, WAG… etc. are “career choices”, or roles that we should want to EMULATE. Oh, pleease!!
8. Accepting that we are to be TOLD who we should emulate. What ever happened to freedom of choice?
9. Obsessing about what we look like, to the point of seeking cosmetic surgery, or developing an eating disorder or body dysmorphia. After all, WHO are we doing it for?
10. Obsessing about celebrities, television soap operas, etc. as though they somehow are true reflections of real life, and give true and accurate representations of women's lives. As if!!
It strikes me that third wave feminism, and thus third wave feminists - if that is what we are to call them (a big if!!) - are confused. They don't know what they're about. So-called third wave feminism is merely a childish appropriation of the term feminism. I mean...
One minute it's all about aggressively acting like "lads". Then it's simpering and flaunting breasts, bum and legs in a tight dress or short skirt, giving out a misleading message to the lads. Next it's being offended if a gentleman (as opposed to a lad) offers to open a door, or offers assistance to get out of a taxi/car. Talk about confused! This is a case of wanting the cake, eating it, and then finding that the cake has caused a nasty case of vomiting!!
Believe me! I've thought long and hard about this, and this so-called "Grrl Power" feminism just doesn't work for me. Feminism isn't just about chanting some ridiculous "mantra" - a mantra without any real meaning. Slogans mean nothing if there is nothing behind them! Feminism was and still should be about women - genuine rights for women, genuine equality, genuine power. NOT MERE PASTICHE! Why are women who have been offered all of these things so hell-bent on giving them away?
I have postulated as to whether there is some biological or evolutionary reason for such female behaviours as noted above. After all, women are supposed to be attracted to men, and vice-versa, in order that they get together, mate, and breed, thus ensuring the continuity of the human race. But then I thought... surely this cannot be what the third wave of feminism is all about! I mean... men and women will have sex, and the human race will go on, irrespective of third wave feminism. Women do not need to act like lads in order to attract a bloke! Nor do they need to dress like sluts! Besides, I had always understood that feminism was about securing women's equality with men. NOT ABOUT A WOMAN SECURING A MAN!
So, then I went on to wonder whether this third wave of feminism was about women beginning to truly open up, and explore the wide range of roles now available to them. Alas, I realised all too quickly that this does not require women to emulate men. Furthermore, it certainly does not require women to emulate the sort of loutish, binge-drinking, dumb-assed men that these so-called third wave feminists seem to ape. And "ape" is a very appropriate word! Since when were all men Neanderthals? Surely these women could have chosen to mimic more appropriate male role-models? Since when did belching, and farting, and pants down in the street prove to be desirable male behaviour, let alone female? Can women do no better? Even, living as I do in a country fond of "Toilet Humour", I find this behaviour a tad crass!
So? Is third wave feminism about finally releasing women's long pent-up anger towards men? Surely not! After all... just how long can women claim to have stayed mad at men? Would such anger even be justifiable now? What would today's women be angry about? SEXISM AND SEXIST COMMENTS? Well, don't wear excessively revealing clothes, then! And if you do wear them, learn to rise above it all, and ignore what blokes say. After all, you choose to wear them; you could wear something else! Might women be angry about having to stay at home to look after the kids? Nah! They chose to stay there! Could they be annoyed by all the media images of the perfect woman, the perfect face, the perfect figure? Are they feeling pressurised by this? Surely not. They choose to buy into the fashion industry, the cosmetic surgery industry, the make-up industry! What is the point of being angry about issues in which YOU have had a hand?
This third wave of feminism (if that is what it is) looks to me to be very much an excuse for tacky and immature behaviour. There's no crime in being young. There's nothing wrong with being young at heart. But neither of these things mean behaving in the way that "third wave feminists" do.
Women of today have been given rights, and choices - things not available to the earlier feminists. Today's women should be grateful, and thankful. They should feel able to use their brains, their rights and their choices to make good decisions. To grow and develop. To become wise. To become astute. To become discerning. Above all, TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
I DO NOT SEE MANY, IF ANY, OF THESE QUALITIES IN SO-CALLED "THIRD WAVE FEMINISTS".
I could go on… but I won’t. I think I’ve pointed out enough already. Now, I don’t object to the notion of a bloke opening a door for me. I don’t mind going halves on a restaurant bill, or whatever. It’s lovely every now and again when my husband buys me flowers, perfume or jewellery… But, I also accept that I can DO THESE THINGS FOR MYSELF. If I so wish to. I also accept that men are free to choose NOT to do them for me. IT'S A FACT OF LIFE. Big deal!
Why the hell do we have to have all these strictly defined “roles” for men and women. Surely we are who and what we are? Each of us individual. Each unique. Each with the potential to be whoever and whatever we wish.
Is that not enough?
And this is where I get back, full circle, to Frida Kahlo. Frida is a feminist icon. For the very reason that she is herself. Original. Unique. FRIDA KAHLO.
Frida Kahlo was a woman who wanted to live life to the full, not by halves. She wore her life experiences stamped on her whole exterior. She expressed her personality through her lifestyle and clothing choices. She lived each day with a passion and drive. She wore her heart on her sleeve, as the saying goes. A woman unafraid. Or, as the Psychologist and author Clarissa Pinkola-Estes would say... a wild woman. "La Loba"... "the woman who runs with the wolves". (8).
There were, and are, many other women out there living their lives in a similar way to Frida Kahlo. Women who were, and are, unafraid to be themselves. Women who were, and are, content, even happy, to be unique, different, original...
Janet Street-Porter. Hedi Lamarr. Siouxsie Sioux. Coco Chanel. Annie Lennox. Vivienne Westward. Marie Curie. Kate Bush. Anna Freud. Grace Jones. Margaret Thatcher. Zandra Rhodes. Mary Wollstonecraft. Virginia Woolfe. Helen Mirren. Glenda Jackson. Sade. The Bronte Sisters. Dian Fossey. Mary Ainsworth. Mary Moore. Mary Shelley. Joni Mitchell. Tina Turner. Jane Morris. Elizabeth Siddall. Germaine Greer. Mo Mowlam. Jenny Morris. Indira Ghandhi. Queen Elizabeth I. Cleopatra. Audrey Hepburn. Nefertiti...
ALL of the above women, and many more (if you take the time to look them up) could be said to have lived, or to be living, their lives according to their own rules. Should they not be our female icons, our feminist role-models?
I am a woman, and I DESPISE what so many of today’s women seem to want to become. Since when was “feminine” so fake? Never mind whether women have lost touch with feminism– many have lost touch with themselves. Never have women seemed more desperate to try and impress, and please men; whilst simultaneously complaining about men!
Talk about hypocrisy!!
When did feminism become so debased? When did being HUMAN become so debased?
----------------------------
REFERENCE LIST:
1. Greer, Germaine. "The Female Eunuch." UK: Harper Perennial, 2006.
2."Frida Kahlo - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frida_Kahlo.
3. AS PER 2.
4. "From Paganism To Christianity | Barbara Percival - Academia.edu" at www.academia.edu/448782/From_Paganism_To_Christianity.
5. "Perth Agreement - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement.
6. "Phenomenology - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology.
7. "Three Waves Of Feminism. From Suffragettes To Grrls." at www.sagepub.com/upm-data/6236_Chapter_1_Krolokke_2nd_Rev_Final_Pdf.pdf
8. Pinkola_Estes, Clarissa. "Women Who Run With The Wolves: Contacting The Power Of The Wild Woman." UK: Rider, 2008.
------------------------------------
Thought for the day...
"Would you rather be YOURSELF, or someone you were TOLD TO BE? Which are YOU more scared of?"...
"What is she doing here?", you might ask. "Is the link feminism?"
Well, I'll get to answering that, in a roundabout way...
Let's start here. Frida represents something special to me. Something dear. Something close to my heart. She represents beauty. Now, please don't make any mistake whatsoever as to my meaning. I suspect that some of you are looking at the image askance, and perhaps thinking, "What a peculiar woman!" I don't doubt that others may go further. After all, I would assume that, based on looks alone, Ms. Kahlo is not everyone's "cup of tea"!
Frida Kahlo represents the decidedly unconventional, both in appearance, and in lifestyle. It is this that I admire about her. To me, her beauty is more than the mere "skin deep". The beauty of Frida Kahlo is multidimensional, coming; or should I say, pouring forth; from within, to shape the without. Frida Kahlo's type of beauty is hard to define, in that it transcends our conventional notions. Hers is a beauty born of a passionate nature, of a quick intellect and strong will. Hers is a beauty that comes from determination, from perseverence, from the overcoming of apparently insurmountable obstacles. Hers is a vivacity, a certain "joie de vivre", even in the face of adversity. When I look at trhis image of Frida Kahlo, I see personality in her face, in her look. I see the strength of character, I see the passion, I see the creativity. There is something about the woman, the way she presents herself, that is indomitable.
Yet, I also see something else; something quite in contrast. I see wistful. I see enigmatic. I see a fragile, delicate butterfly. True, Frida Kahlo challenges social conventions, with her colourful, flamboyant, sometimes almost tribal, dress. But there is a woman behind the clothes, the hair, the make-up. This woman shines through, the nuances of her personality perfectly embodied in the choice of attire.
Frida Kahlo's look is more than just a look, it is Frida Kahlo. Throughout her brief life, this woman lived with a zest, and a passion. She suffered lifelong health problems, resulting predominantly from a terrible accident in which she was involved, when aged only 18. Frida was, at the time of her accident, a passenger on a bus, which collided with a tram/trolley car. During the accident, the date of which was September 17th, 1925, Frida sustained multiple injuries; these included a broken collarbone, broken ribs, fractured spinal column, broken pelvis, eleven fractures in her right leg, a diclocated shoulder, and a crushed and dislocated right foot. This; along with the fact that Frida contracted Polio when aged 6; left her with a right leg thinner than the left, and the lifelong trauma of undergoing multiple surgeries. Frida did eventually learn to walk again, but was left with extensive damage to her body. Due to her injuries; including the fact that during the accident, her abdomen and uterus had been pierced by an iron handrail; Frida Kahlo was left with reproductive problems, chronic pain, and was prone to periodic "relapses" (3).
Frida hid the effects of her accident, and her thinner right leg, by wearing long, brightly-coloured skirts, and flowing dresses. It appears that her choice of clothing was deliberate, as was the way she styled her hair, and accessorised an outfit. Frida's look hearkens back to the peasant outfits of her Amerindian ancestors, whilst at the same time making a contemporary statement about her creativity and artistic flair. Her choice of bright, exotic colours is perhaps a nod in the direction of her native Mexican scenery. Frida Kahlo dresses to reflect her heritage, her culture, and her country of birth. She dresses to reflect her personal history - to conceal the scars of her surgery. She dresses to reflect her personality, her passion, her individuality.
"All very well and good", you may say, "but what's this got to do with feminism, or post-feminism... or the title of this piece, for that matter?" Now, this is where I ask you to begin your conjecture...
Feminism, in its early days, sought to advocate women's rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality with men. For far too long, women had been seen as "second class citizens". Hundreds of thousands of years of "society" have lead to our current position. Hundreds of thousands of years of beliefs, ideologies, thoughts, concepts. We carry with us the legacy of this past. Kid yourselves not!
Historically, women have for many years been the "underdogs". Sadly, this appears to have come about as a result of what might be construed as positive developments - the move to a more orderly, paternalistic society; such as that seen in ancient Rome; and the switch from "pagan" to Christianized religious belief in the West (4). Alas, the benefits were reaped predominantly by men. Women lost power, status, and often the physical right to hold land or property, run businesses, and inherit titles. Lineages passed often from male to male heir, bypassing female offspring (or, rather, cutting them out altogether) - hence the law of "Primogeniture", which even today, is often employed within the echelons of "high society", and which ensures that only firstborn sons inherit a family title. Look to our British Royal Family for a perfect example of this - only recently were the inheritence rules altered. The "Perth Agreement", of October 2011, concerns changes to the royal succession laws in 16 Commonwealth realms, which were agreed to by heads of state (Prime Ministers/Presidents). The alterations would replace male preference primogeniture - under which sons take preference over daughters in lines of succession - with absolute primogeniture, meaning that the firstborn would succeed to the Throne, irrespective of gender (5).
The first feminists sought to secure the same rights for women as for men. They wanted women to be able to vote, to be able to have careers, to be free to dress as they chose, to be able to indulge in pastimes such as sport... in brief, to live they lives that they, and not other people, chose. These were early feminists, many of whom had grown up during a time when women did not have careers. When women were forced to stay at home and raise children. When women were seen as subordinate to men - as mere "homemakers" and "housewives". When women who were not dressed "properly" in corsets, crinolines, long skirts, bustles, bonnets, gloves were seen as inappropriately louche, or even lascivious... when to make a "fashion faux-pas" was seen as social suicide. The women of the era in which many early feminists were raised did not vote. They rarely owned property in their own right. They could not go out and earn a respectable living; consequently they had to rely on men (their husbands, fathers, brothers) to financially support them. They could not purchase belongings in their own right. Rather, they were belongings. Having few, or no, rights of their own, they existed as the "possessions" of men. Early feminists sought to put an end to this.
I suspect that there are many of us so-called "modern" women of today who would find it difficult to imagine being in the position that I have described above. We take for granted the fact that women do have rights. Today's women are able to go to work, or to stay at home as housewives, depending upon choice and circumstance. They are free to vote. They are able to receive an education. Today's women can purchase property, and personal possessions, in their own right. They can dress in skirts, blouses, suits, dresses, trousers, jumpers... they have a choice of attire that was once unimaginable. Today's women can remain single, date casually, live with a partner (male or female co-habitant), marry, divorce... The lifestyle permutations are endless.
So, what surprises me is what women are now doing with this hard-won freedom. This is why I ask my question as to whether today's women are the "last post of feminism". Allow me to elaborate...
It is a given that feminism, like women, moves on. It grows, and changes. It evolves. Just as our society has changed, so have women, and so has feminism. The birth of feminism occurred at a specific point in time, and in response to a specific set of social circumstances. Feminism, in this sense, could be considered PHENOMENOLOGICAL (6). It cannot be divorced from the reality of the society in which we live; for we, as human beings, create that society all about us. We are responsible for its existence.
The first feminists came into being because they wished to say something important about the society in which they lived - they wished to react against this society. Since their time, the society - indeed the culture - in which we live has changed. Women have gained important rights (whether we consider these to have been won for them by the first feminists, or not). Feminism, therefore, changed too; to take account of the new roles available to women; to keep up with the ways in which women themselves were changing...
Authors often talk of three waves of feminism. Clearly, the first was that early feminism described above. This was connected with the fight for women's equal rights with men, and was closely tied in to the early liberal women's rights movement and socialist feminism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. We must remember that across Europe and America, this was a period of great flux, and disruption of society. The Industrial Revolution had brought with it immense changes to the world of work, whilst radical developments in fields such as Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, Science, Education and the like were to revolutionise the way in which many people (certainly those who wished to consider themselves enlightened!) thought, and viewed the world about them. Women wanted access to employment, to education... in short, to sources of power and prosperity formerly the preserve of men.
The second wave of feminism was that which took place predominantly from the 1960s to the early 1990s.
This type of feminism defined itself via comparison of women's places in society with those of other "oppressed" groups such as ethnic minorities, disabled people, gays and lesbians. Just as these other stigmatised and often discriminated-against groups of people sought to find a better place for themselves within society - to increase their standing - so did women via the second wave of feminism.This wave of feminism refers mostly to radical feminism and to the women's liberation movement, and was very much concerned with women from ethnic minorities as well as from "Third World" countries.
I would argue that both of the aforementioned waves of feminism were extremely powerful and liberating movements. They gave voices to women - voices that had previously gone unheard.
So, what of the third wave?
Well, that's the one I have a problem with!
The third wave of feminism (if that's what we can call it!) is the feminism of the "Grrl". "Born with the privileges that first- and second-wave feminists fought for, third-wave feminists generally see themselves as capable, strong and assertive social agents: "The Third wave is buoyed by the confidence of having more opportunities and less sexism" (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000, p.83). (7). This style of feminism has much to do with girl bands, modern technologies, and reclamation of the word "girl". It attempts to appeal to a younger generation, or to the "young at heart" by being "self-assertive", "edgy" and "playful" (all terms used by third-wave feminists, and not just by myself).
This third wave has much to say for itself, and this is where I think it falls down. It is the proverbial "all mouth and no trousers". (Ironic, really, for a feminist movement!). Third wave feminists claim to have simultaneously criticised sexist language, whilst appropriating for themselves the use of once-derogatory terms. They claim to have coined new self-celebratory words, and ways of communicating.
Big claims! So, let's look at what's actually going on...
I have major reasons for taking issue with so-called “modern feminism”. Forget all the old arguments about political, economic and social equality. The early feminists may have fought for women’s rights on such bases, but today, we take for granted that we do have these rights. And THIS is my point. Women now take for granted what was once hard won. The modern feminists appear to have forgotten completely what it was like to have nothing, and to have to fight for rights. They are complacent!
Personally, I cannot say whether women are yet equal to men, in a wide number of ways. (Many of us are acutely aware that there remains the so-called "glass ceiling" with respect to women's wages.) However, I cannot also say whether the reason for this lies with men, or with WOMEN THEMSELVES.
Modern women can vote, if they so choose. They take this fact for granted. Very few women (certainly the ones I know) are politically aware, or astute. Asked why they vote for the party they vote for, and they give VERY FLIMSY ANSWERS, such as “oh, my husband votes for them, so I do too”, or “we always voted for…”. They do not put much thought, if any, into their choice of candidate or political party, and all too often, they show that they can be EASILY INFLUENCED by somebody else’s choice.
Is this what early feminists fought for? I doubt it! Such complacency, ignorance and susceptibility were present in women long before the feminist movement ever sought to challenge them. If this is how we choose now to behave, then why should feminists ever have bothered?!
Modern women can also go out to work, get an education, and dress however they like. So, why is it that so many choose to give up on this? Just like the corseted and male-dominated “housewife” of the pre-feminist Victorian era, many of today’s women stay chained to the kitchen sink, popping out kids, and dependent on husbands or partners for an income. The irony is, however, that unlike their Victorian counterparts – today's women choose this. THEY MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO DO IT!
The same women also make conscious choices about the way they dress – TO IMPRESS MEN! Women who would be offended if you were to openly call them “trophy wives”, or “bimbos” or whatever, CHOOSE to dress in ways that make them look just like what they profess to despise. Even though they claim to dress to suit themselves, the clothes they don – short skirts, high heels, skimpy cleavage-revealing tops – ALL SEND OUT THE WRONG SIGNAL TO MEN. They signal “desperate” and “available”. Yet these same women bleat on about how unfair society is to women, and how they don’t get taken seriously!
It is hard for me to understand how the woman, free to choose, decides to limit her freedom all over again. Free to dress as she likes, the woman chooses to dress to suit men's desires! Free to get an education, or hold down a top job, the woman chooses to stay reliant upon a spouse, and stuck at home! Free to live independently, the woman chooses to make herself dependent again! Yes, I accept that people are all different, and that what one person wants out of life may not be the same as for another... but still? To have freedom of choice, and to choose self-limitation!
I just cannot get into the heads of such women. Often, I truly wonder if there is actually anything at all in there! It is as though the bird, freed from its cage, chooses willingly to return there... almost as though the cage has become some sort of familiar comfort zone. IS THIS WHAT PSYCHOLOGISTS TERM "LEARNED HELPLESSNESS"? Are we to believe that women have become so used to being "dominated" by men - so used to being told how to think, how to act - that some women cannot imagine anything else? Cannot cope with anything else?
Just look at the ways modern women, some of whom claim to be feminists, or acting in the name of feminism, demean themselves….
1. The sex industry. Please don’t try telling me that becoming a female stripper or pole dancer is “feminist” and gives “power over men”. I’ve rarely heard such bull****!
2. Glamour models. THIS goes without saying!
3. Bad dress sense – fake tan, orange skin, tacky hair extensions, skimpy clothes, false nails… a whole range of unnecessary TAT, just to impress MEN!
4. “Girl power”! Oh, come on! A meaningless slogan!
5. Binge drinking and associated behaviour (e.g. getting tits out). Do these sort of cringe-worthy antics REALLY give equality with blokes? And, if so, is this REALLY the sort of equality women want?
6. Cosmetic surgery. Do we truly need breast enlargement, liposuction and the like? Why on earth should women feel the need to alter their bodies to satisfy a stereotype designed by MEN? Women do NOT have “cartoon” bodies, or bodies like “Barbie Dolls” and it is desperately sad that they should feel the need to cosmetically alter their bodies to look like this.
7. Believing that pole dancer, lap dancer, stripper, topless model, girl group member, WAG… etc. are “career choices”, or roles that we should want to EMULATE. Oh, pleease!!
8. Accepting that we are to be TOLD who we should emulate. What ever happened to freedom of choice?
9. Obsessing about what we look like, to the point of seeking cosmetic surgery, or developing an eating disorder or body dysmorphia. After all, WHO are we doing it for?
10. Obsessing about celebrities, television soap operas, etc. as though they somehow are true reflections of real life, and give true and accurate representations of women's lives. As if!!
It strikes me that third wave feminism, and thus third wave feminists - if that is what we are to call them (a big if!!) - are confused. They don't know what they're about. So-called third wave feminism is merely a childish appropriation of the term feminism. I mean...
One minute it's all about aggressively acting like "lads". Then it's simpering and flaunting breasts, bum and legs in a tight dress or short skirt, giving out a misleading message to the lads. Next it's being offended if a gentleman (as opposed to a lad) offers to open a door, or offers assistance to get out of a taxi/car. Talk about confused! This is a case of wanting the cake, eating it, and then finding that the cake has caused a nasty case of vomiting!!
Believe me! I've thought long and hard about this, and this so-called "Grrl Power" feminism just doesn't work for me. Feminism isn't just about chanting some ridiculous "mantra" - a mantra without any real meaning. Slogans mean nothing if there is nothing behind them! Feminism was and still should be about women - genuine rights for women, genuine equality, genuine power. NOT MERE PASTICHE! Why are women who have been offered all of these things so hell-bent on giving them away?
I have postulated as to whether there is some biological or evolutionary reason for such female behaviours as noted above. After all, women are supposed to be attracted to men, and vice-versa, in order that they get together, mate, and breed, thus ensuring the continuity of the human race. But then I thought... surely this cannot be what the third wave of feminism is all about! I mean... men and women will have sex, and the human race will go on, irrespective of third wave feminism. Women do not need to act like lads in order to attract a bloke! Nor do they need to dress like sluts! Besides, I had always understood that feminism was about securing women's equality with men. NOT ABOUT A WOMAN SECURING A MAN!
So, then I went on to wonder whether this third wave of feminism was about women beginning to truly open up, and explore the wide range of roles now available to them. Alas, I realised all too quickly that this does not require women to emulate men. Furthermore, it certainly does not require women to emulate the sort of loutish, binge-drinking, dumb-assed men that these so-called third wave feminists seem to ape. And "ape" is a very appropriate word! Since when were all men Neanderthals? Surely these women could have chosen to mimic more appropriate male role-models? Since when did belching, and farting, and pants down in the street prove to be desirable male behaviour, let alone female? Can women do no better? Even, living as I do in a country fond of "Toilet Humour", I find this behaviour a tad crass!
So? Is third wave feminism about finally releasing women's long pent-up anger towards men? Surely not! After all... just how long can women claim to have stayed mad at men? Would such anger even be justifiable now? What would today's women be angry about? SEXISM AND SEXIST COMMENTS? Well, don't wear excessively revealing clothes, then! And if you do wear them, learn to rise above it all, and ignore what blokes say. After all, you choose to wear them; you could wear something else! Might women be angry about having to stay at home to look after the kids? Nah! They chose to stay there! Could they be annoyed by all the media images of the perfect woman, the perfect face, the perfect figure? Are they feeling pressurised by this? Surely not. They choose to buy into the fashion industry, the cosmetic surgery industry, the make-up industry! What is the point of being angry about issues in which YOU have had a hand?
This third wave of feminism (if that is what it is) looks to me to be very much an excuse for tacky and immature behaviour. There's no crime in being young. There's nothing wrong with being young at heart. But neither of these things mean behaving in the way that "third wave feminists" do.
Women of today have been given rights, and choices - things not available to the earlier feminists. Today's women should be grateful, and thankful. They should feel able to use their brains, their rights and their choices to make good decisions. To grow and develop. To become wise. To become astute. To become discerning. Above all, TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
I DO NOT SEE MANY, IF ANY, OF THESE QUALITIES IN SO-CALLED "THIRD WAVE FEMINISTS".
I could go on… but I won’t. I think I’ve pointed out enough already. Now, I don’t object to the notion of a bloke opening a door for me. I don’t mind going halves on a restaurant bill, or whatever. It’s lovely every now and again when my husband buys me flowers, perfume or jewellery… But, I also accept that I can DO THESE THINGS FOR MYSELF. If I so wish to. I also accept that men are free to choose NOT to do them for me. IT'S A FACT OF LIFE. Big deal!
Why the hell do we have to have all these strictly defined “roles” for men and women. Surely we are who and what we are? Each of us individual. Each unique. Each with the potential to be whoever and whatever we wish.
Is that not enough?
And this is where I get back, full circle, to Frida Kahlo. Frida is a feminist icon. For the very reason that she is herself. Original. Unique. FRIDA KAHLO.
Frida Kahlo was a woman who wanted to live life to the full, not by halves. She wore her life experiences stamped on her whole exterior. She expressed her personality through her lifestyle and clothing choices. She lived each day with a passion and drive. She wore her heart on her sleeve, as the saying goes. A woman unafraid. Or, as the Psychologist and author Clarissa Pinkola-Estes would say... a wild woman. "La Loba"... "the woman who runs with the wolves". (8).
There were, and are, many other women out there living their lives in a similar way to Frida Kahlo. Women who were, and are, unafraid to be themselves. Women who were, and are, content, even happy, to be unique, different, original...
Janet Street-Porter. Hedi Lamarr. Siouxsie Sioux. Coco Chanel. Annie Lennox. Vivienne Westward. Marie Curie. Kate Bush. Anna Freud. Grace Jones. Margaret Thatcher. Zandra Rhodes. Mary Wollstonecraft. Virginia Woolfe. Helen Mirren. Glenda Jackson. Sade. The Bronte Sisters. Dian Fossey. Mary Ainsworth. Mary Moore. Mary Shelley. Joni Mitchell. Tina Turner. Jane Morris. Elizabeth Siddall. Germaine Greer. Mo Mowlam. Jenny Morris. Indira Ghandhi. Queen Elizabeth I. Cleopatra. Audrey Hepburn. Nefertiti...
ALL of the above women, and many more (if you take the time to look them up) could be said to have lived, or to be living, their lives according to their own rules. Should they not be our female icons, our feminist role-models?
I am a woman, and I DESPISE what so many of today’s women seem to want to become. Since when was “feminine” so fake? Never mind whether women have lost touch with feminism– many have lost touch with themselves. Never have women seemed more desperate to try and impress, and please men; whilst simultaneously complaining about men!
Talk about hypocrisy!!
When did feminism become so debased? When did being HUMAN become so debased?
----------------------------
REFERENCE LIST:
1. Greer, Germaine. "The Female Eunuch." UK: Harper Perennial, 2006.
2."Frida Kahlo - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frida_Kahlo.
3. AS PER 2.
4. "From Paganism To Christianity | Barbara Percival - Academia.edu" at www.academia.edu/448782/From_Paganism_To_Christianity.
5. "Perth Agreement - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement.
6. "Phenomenology - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia" at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology.
7. "Three Waves Of Feminism. From Suffragettes To Grrls." at www.sagepub.com/upm-data/6236_Chapter_1_Krolokke_2nd_Rev_Final_Pdf.pdf
8. Pinkola_Estes, Clarissa. "Women Who Run With The Wolves: Contacting The Power Of The Wild Woman." UK: Rider, 2008.
------------------------------------
Thought for the day...
"Would you rather be YOURSELF, or someone you were TOLD TO BE? Which are YOU more scared of?"...
RSS Feed