Quiet Feminists? How Modern Feminism Is Losing Its Voice
Two inmates escape a prison. They knock down a wall, kill a guard, cut their way through a metal fence, and make it to civilization undetected. What happens next? Those same inmates return to the prison of their own volition, exclaiming that they fought their way out in order to earn the choice to return to prison. That sounds ludicrous, right? What fools would go through the struggle of an escape just to return to the same conditions they were entrapped in before? The answer, surprisingly, is women. Since its start in the early twentieth century, the feminist movement has fought for a variety of women's rights, from the right to vote to the prevention of gender-based discrimination in the workforce. However, today’s (third-wave) feminists have failed to embrace the spoils of the feminist movement with the same energy and unity as their predecessors. This has led to the re-emergence of cultural trends, such as sexual objectification of women, that the feminist movement fought to get rid of just decades before. Split between factions embracing feminism’s progressive past and those seeking to redefine feminism, the modern feminist movement lacks unity and cohesion. This lack of unity has caused modern feminism to become less impactful than second-wave feminism, a feminist movement that found success in its unified push for women's’ rights.
One of the most consequential movements to arise during the 1960’s and ‘70’s was the revival of feminism, or the fight for women’s rights. This ‘second-wave’ feminist movement was a formidable force fighting for women’s rights and both legally and socially. Specifically, it fought for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, increased access to birth control, and opposed the blatant sexism that was generally accepted in society (“Second-wave Feminism”). While unable to secure the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment (it passed Congress but was not ratified by three-fourths of the states), feminists were able to achieve many of their other goals (“The 1960s-70s…”). A bestselling book by feminist Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, “contested the post-World War II belief that it was women’s destiny to marry and bear children” and caused women to rethink their role in society. This re-evaluation of a woman’s role in society was aided by a birth control pill approved by the FDA in 1960, which was embraced by feminists as it gave greater “self-determination” to women (Frink). It helped women to “plan and space children, allowing them to pursue educational and career opportunities” without the complications of an unexpected pregnancy( ). The feminist movement of the 1960’s and ‘70’s did not simply advocate for women, as it also protested gender expectations. A radical example of such protests was a protest of the Miss America pageant in September 1968, an event that began with “crown[ing] a sheep Miss America” and culminated with the tossing of “high-heeled shoes, curlers, girdles, […] bras,” and other “instruments of women’s oppression” (“Second-wave Feminism”). Not all protests were as open or visible; A decline in marriages, an increase in divorce rates, and a decrease in children per household highlighted the shift in focus away traditional household and gender roles (“Women of…”). Through both protests and advocacy, second-wave feminism fought for increased gender equality in the home, in the workplace, and in society.
The success of the second-wave feminist movement is shown in the widespread support it received at the time. A Harris Poll from 1975 “found that 63% [of] Americans favor[ed] ‘most of the efforts to strengthen and change women’s status in society.” This was an increase of 21% from the same poll conducted just five years prior, and showed that “the belief that women are entitled to truly equal social and professional rights [had] spread far and deep into the country.” This was further shown in the political realm, as “Connecticut’s Ella Grasso took office as the first woman Governor elected in her own right.” In just five years between 1970 and 1975, the number of women in elected office doubled. This increase in support for women in politics was just one way that support for the feminist movement manifested itself during the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. The aforementioned birth control pill approved in 1960 received widespread support from feminist organizations, who argued that it would empower women and allow them greater self-determination. This message hit home. Encouraged by the idea that they could take more control over their lives and pan their pregnancies, “some six million women were using [the pill]” “within five years of [its] approval” (“Second-wave Feminism”). The widespread use of the pill, which was encouraged by feminists, highlighted the overall support for the feminist movement. People during the sixties and seventies valued what the leaders of the movement had to say, and unified behind common causes such as marriage equality and increased political representation. The success of this movement, and the unity that led to its success, was highlighted in 1975 by TIME Magazine. TIME’s ‘Person of the Year’ for 1975 was awarded to “American Women,” highlighting the significant impact that second-wave feminism was having on mainstream culture. This served as a reminder of the lasting and widespread impact that women can have when they band together and fight for a common goal and cause. In the article, TIME listed off the accomplishments of women in the previous year, a list that would not have been possible if women were not united behind the feminist movement and did not wish to reap the rewards of their fight.
Feminism today is less consequential than it was in the sixties and seventies. This change can be attributed to a lack of a unity among feminists, as well as to the lack of a platform from which feminists can derive their goals. In the wake of the divisive 2016 election cycle, one of the most common cries heard at feminist rallies and protests is “Women’s rights are Human Rights” (“Hillary Clinton Declares…”). On the surface this cry, which comes from a Hillary Clinton speech in 1995, seems to echo many of the equal-rights protests that emerged during the second-wave feminism of the sixties and seventies. However, the ambiguous nature of this cry helps to hide the divisions and lack of unity inherent in modern feminism. The reality is that many of today's feminists disagree on how to embrace the victories of feminism’s past without removing a woman’s right to choose her own path. While some argue that women should be compelled to support all aspects of the feminist movement, others argue that modern feminism should allow women to choose whether or not to embrace certain aspects of the feminist fight, as choice is an inherent characteristic of true equality. The lack of one, clear voice, emanating from the feminist movement makes it lest impactful overall. How is feminism supposed to engender meaningful change both legally and societally if it cannot agree upon a platform from which to base its arguments? The current feminist movement is currently comprised of multiple, muffled voices attempting to shout over each other, each advocating for different reforms and ideals. This mutes the impact of the feminist movement and undermines support for feminist causes.
Many modern women, emboldened by achievements of second-wave feminism, have begun embracing past symbols of women's’ oppression as a new form of feminism. These women wear “jeans cut so low they [expose] […] butt cleavage paired with miniature tops that [show] off breast implants and pierced navels alike” (Levy, 2). Third-wave feminism, they argue, is represented by “empowering miniskirts and feminist stippers.” This is in stark contrast to the ideals of second-wave feminism, a generation that “[burned] their bras” in opposition to the sexual objectification of their gender (3). Many second and even third-wave feminists find themselves unable to accept the notion that modern feminism should support “resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish.” They argue that shows such as Charlie’s Angels, which features female characters “dressed in alternating soft-porn styles” should not be acclaimed for their female “empowerment” if such empowerment is achieved through sexual objectification (2). This creates a divide between feminists who are seeking to craft a new representation of feminism and those who believe doing so undermines the feminist cause entirely. This divide hampers the ability of the modern feminist movement to be influential in today’s society. With some feminist groups objecting to the very behavior that others define as feminism, many women are left wondering what exactly it means to support the feminist cause, and what feminism truly is. How can women be expected to advocate for a movement with competing platforms and a lack of clear objectives?
The consequences of a lack of unity within the modern feminist movement was brought to the national stage in the 2016 Presidential election. The 2016 election made history, as Hillary Clinton became the first female presidential nominee for a major party. However, this election also highlighted the diminished impact of the feminist movement, and showed how harmful a lack of unity can be for the feminist movement. Feminists could not agree whether supporting Mrs. Clinton simply because she was a woman was valid feminist cause, or whether doing so would undermine the feminist argument that women should be treated and evaluated equally to men. This argument was was brought television screens across the nation when two icons of prior feminist movements, Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright, garnered criticism for their comments in support of Secretary Clinton. As it became clear that Clinton was ceding ground to Bernie Sanders, especially among younger women, Albright chastised “young women who supported Mr. Sanders,” arguing that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” (Rappeport)! Steinem furthered the controversy when she suggested that young women were supporting Sanders “because that’s where the boys [were].” Both Steinem and Albright agreed with the notion that it was imperative that women unify and fight to elect America’s first female president. They, like many feminists of their time, believe that any opportunity to advance the role and perception of women in society should be capitalized upon. While their comments were criticized by columnists and pundits alike, they reflected the sentiments of many feminists. How, they argued, could women turn down the opportunity to break the glass ceiling and refuse to support a woman. However, many younger feminists countered this argument by suggesting that the mere fact that they had the opportunity to vote for a woman reflected the success of the feminist movement. Secretary Clinton went on to lose the election, proving yet again that simply putting a woman on the ballot often fails to lead to tangible change.
While Steinem and Albright may have angered many feminists with their comments, the reality is their sentiments may have been valid. Take 2016, for example, a year that many feminists believe represents the success of their movement. Yes, there was a woman on the ballot as a major party’s nominee for the first time, but that woman failed to actually win the election, and thus America has still yet to have a female leader. Despite the prevailing notion among many feminists that feminism is successful so long as women there is a woman on the ballot that one can choose to support, the reality is that women are vastly underrepresented in government. While women make up over half of the United States population, they “held just 23% of government offices” as of 2016 (Abrams). This disparity is even starker in Congress, where women made up just 20% of Senators and just 19% of Representatives. For feminists to argue that they have achieved their goals by simply by getting a woman on the ballot would be suggesting that women are somehow deserving of their limited representation in government. Is it really defensible to suggest that women are worthy of one-fourth of the representation that men have in government? In a modern era in which 92% of Americans say they would support a qualified female presidential candidate, feminists must recognize that their failure to unify and create a platform from which women can run, and win, elections has robbed their movement of its impact and voice (McCarthy). Ultimately, this led to the election of yet another male president.
The diminished impact of modern feminism is especially evident when compared directly to the efforts of the second-wave feminist movement. Second-wave feminists were able to obtain the passage of legislation to aid women’s rights while holding “only 5% of the elective positions” (“Women of…”). Furthermore, when given the opportunity to elect a female governor for the first time, they did so. They did so despite the fact that only “73% of the American people would support a qualified woman running for President” at the time, showing that they were able to break a glass ceiling in a time where women were not considered political equals by more than twenty-five percent of United States citizens. Unlike modern feminists, second-wave feminists were able to unify behind a specific legislative changes and candidates, and successfully achieved many of their goals as a result. Even with less public support for their cause, and less women in elected office to advocate for their cause, second-wave feminists were able to force tangible change both in government and society. However, this would not have been possible had they been content with simply getting a bill on the floor of the Senate, or had they been content simply with the sight of Ella Grasso’s name on the ballot in Connecticut. Second-wave feminists embraced the fruits of their labor and did all they could to support female causes, with the hope that those who followed would continue to do the same.
Although the modern feminist movement may be less impactful and influential than previous feminist movements, it does not have to remain as such. A poll by the Washington Post in 2016 found that 44% of women believe that “the choices women make themselves” is a “bigger factor keeping women from achieving full equality with men” than discrimination (Cai). It is easy to understand why. Many women today believe that “the feminist project [has] already been achieved,” and thus modern feminism is the empowerment of women to make their own choices with the rights they have gained (Levy). This belief weakens the feminist movement, as it allows for women to re-adopt many of the stereotypes that prior movements sought to banish, and does not actively promote active participation in feminism. Furthermore, regressive feminism is a divisive topic, as many feminists would argue that any form of regression is unacceptable and should not be tolerated within the feminist movement. Others, however, argue that modern feminism is characterized by choice, and one should not be compelled to act in a specific manner by neither men nor women. The reality is that feminism must find an identity, and soon. Either it must embrace the traditions of prior feminist movements and continue to be an active source of change, or it must adopt a new approach that encourages choice and incremental progress. Until modern feminism adopts one, united platform, it will continue to be less impactful than prior feminist movements.
Works Cited
Abrams, Abigail. “2016 Election: Men in Government Still Far Outnumber Women.” Time,
Time, 7 Nov. 2016, Web.
Cai, Weiyi, and Matt Clement. “Poll: Feminism in the U.S.” The Washington Post, WP
Company, 27 Jan. 2016, Web.
Chenoweth, Erica, and Jeremy Pressman. "Analysis | This Is What We Learned by Counting the
Women’s Marches." The Washington Post. WP Company, 07 Feb. 2017. Web.
Frink, Brenda. "The Pill and the Marriage Revolution." The Clayman Institute for Gender
Research. Stanford University, 29 Sept. 2011. Web.
"Hillary Clinton Declares "Women's Rights Are Human Rights"." PBS. Public Broadcasting
Service, 30 Oct. 2017. Web.
Levy, Ariel. “Introduction.” Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture,
Free Press, 2005, 1-5.
McCarthy, Justin. “In U.S., Socialist Presidential Candidates Least Appealing.” Gallup.com,
Gallup News, 22 June 2015, Web.
Rappeport, Alan. “Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing
Bernie Sanders.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Feb. 2016,
"Second-wave Feminism." Khan Academy. N.p., n.d. Web.
“The 1960s-70s American Feminist Movement: Breaking Down Barriers for Women.”Tavaana,
E-Collaborative for Civic Education, n.d. Web.
"Women of the Year: Great Changes, New Chances, Tough Choices." Time. Time Inc., 05
Jan. 1976. Web.