Second Wave Feminism

Since we are able to stray from the ‘blog prompts’ I thought I would do that for once, just to address some specific points in the last module that I thought were pertinent.

In the second module, we learned that racism and discrimination in general were still, at first, prevalent within the second wave of feminism. Feminists did not want to be associated with lesbians because they felt that lesbians had too many shared qualities with that of men, who they were trying to break away from.

I think that this was hypocritical as well. With such a statement being made, it is all too evident that the second wave of feminism was too caught up in stereotypes at the beginning. To discriminate against African American women and lesbians defeats the whole purpose of accepting all women for the women’s movement.

Although Sojourner Truth made her speech, “Ain’t I a woman?” in 1851, her concepts and clarity about what defines who a woman is still relate a great deal to the later discriminations in the second wave of feminism. Lesbians are still women. African Americans are still women. They might have different colored skin or different sexuality preferences, but they are both still women and deserve their rights. All races and all different sexual orientations deserve rights.

In 1968, however, as stated in the module, this was changed when a meeting of women was held in Chicago to put an end to segregation and discrimination, which is a major improvement and change in the second wave of feminism.

I feel that consciousness Raising Groups are an extremely important part of the second wave of feminism, and I honestly don’t think they have completely died out today. I just think they aren’t as publicized as they used to be. I certainly have not heard of consciousness raising groups until I listened to this module lecture, and I feel as though if I were to hear of one being held in my community it would probably interest me immensely.

Keeping in mind of the time period in which the Feminist Mystique was produced, I think that it held a lot of truth to it. While there was not enough evidence collected by Betty Fridan for her results (100 something surveys doesn’t exactly reflect the entire population’s opinion), I think for the most part that – despite the lack of evidence – Fridan had the right idea about women’s feelings towards domesticity. Also, in that 1950’s and 60’s the media pretty much created, as stated in the lecture, a false image of how women should be. A lot of women were afraid that by veering from the course of domesticity, they would be disrespecting several parties (ie: their husbands, the media, maybe their parents, and even friends).

I think a Manifesto has its pros and cons. It is definitely a good way to highlight the changes that women want brought-about in society. It is not, however, the best idea to list forceful demands and be extremely confrontational. Sometimes confrontation ends up making the problem worse rather than better. If women approach changing policies with confrontation, then policy makers might be disinclined to take an interest in their demands. If they approach policy changes in a stern manner, but with a willingness to comprise on certain policies, I think that women can get a better response out of policy makers.

Feminism in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Just as I did with the last round of blog posts, I want to once again address feminist aspects in yet another TV series.

This time around I just wanted to point out the strong feminist aspects in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

A short snipped from Wikipedia:

Joss Whedon (the creator of 'Buffy')identifies himself as a feminist, and feminist themes are common in his work. For his part, Whedon credits his mother, Lee Stearns, as the inspiration for his feminist worldview. When Roseanne Barr asked him how he could write so well for women, he replied, "If you met my mom, you wouldn't ask."

Joss's feminist influences are seen throughout the entire 'Buffy' series. He once stated in an interview that he wrote 'Buffy' with the idea of combating the stereotypical 'blonde girl as a damsel in distress in horror films that is either killed or saved by a man'. He certainly achieved this goal. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a series about a young blonde girl who has the destiny to combat the forces of evil.

I must now take a short moment to apologize to everyone reading this post -- I forgot to warn you all that I am a ridiculously HUGE Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. I have all 7 seasons on DVD, t-shirts, the BTVS high-school year book from season 3, over 20 BTVS paper back novels, The entire first season on VHS as well, the BTVS video game 'chaos bleeds', A Buffy barbie doll, and several other things. Haha. Now that I've scared everyone away, I'll continue.

A lot of people credit 'Buffy' with opening up opportunities for women on TV as portraying strong, female independent characters. In the series, Buffy Summers herself isn't exactly the brightest crayon in the box (though her SAT scores in season 3 would suggest otherwise). I think Joss chose this quality for Buffy with a specific purpose in mind. A lot of Buffy's intellect isn't displayed in her school work but rather her most intelligent decisions come about when she is trying to save the world or her friends and family. Joss uses Buffy's emotions as a weapon (both figuratively and literally) as a means of 'solving the puzzle' in Buffy's battles.

Contrary to what a lot of anti-feminists proclaim, emotions - in this case - provide strength rather than weakness.

Honestly, I grew up with this series. I had been watching it from a young age (with a lot of that being without my mother's knowledge) and I think it definitely shaped a lot of my attitudes and feelings about women empowerment. 'Buffy' definitely taught me the importance of staying true to yourself and to make decisions based on how I want to make them.

I think one of my all-time favorite episodes that impacted me the most was in Season 5, episode 12 of the series.

In it, The Watchers' Council comes to Sunnydale to tell Buffy what they know about Glory, on condition that she proves herself worthy. She refuses to go through their tests, and they tell her Glory is a god. (Summary from Wikipedia)

The most relevant scenes in the episode were probably as followed (I know that this post is ridiculously long, but I PROMISE it is relevant):

1. In Buffy's history class, the teacher is discussing how Rasputin was considered nearly impossible to kill. Buffy challenges the professor to look at history from another angle, but he shoots her ideas down with scathing criticism and sarcasm, embarrassing her in front of the class. That night, Buffy complains about class to a vampire she's fighting until she is thrown off balance. Spike suddenly appears, flying over a tombstone to tackle and stake the vampire. He expects gratitude, but Buffy accuses him of getting in her way. The two then verbally attack each other.

My response: Buffy attempts to share new insights on an old perspective, and is shot down. I think she really shows that it is important to share your beliefs even if others will think they are ridiculous, because in reality there are some who agree with your beliefs and were too shy or scared to say them themselves.

Also an interesting tidbit is this part about Buffy shooting down Spike's chivalry. She shows that she is extremely independent and doesn't need a man's help, undead or not.

2. Buffy: No review. No interrogation. No questions you know I can't answer. No hoops. No jumps. (Nigel is about to speak.) No interruptions. See, I've had a lot of people talking at me in the last few days. Everyone just lining up to tell me how unimportant I am. And I've finally figured out why. Power. I have it. They don't. This bothers them. Glory came to my home today.

Giles: Buffy are you all—

Buffy: Just to talk. She told me I'm a bug, I'm a flea, she could squash me in a second. Only she didn't. She came into my home, and we talked. We had what in her warped brain probably passes for a civilized conversation. Why? Because she needs something from me. Because I have power over her. You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives, some semblance of meaning.

Buffy: You're Watchers. Without a Slayer... you're pretty much just watching Masterpiece Theater. You can't stop Glory. You can't do anything with the information you have, except maybe publish it in the Everyone Thinks We're Insanos Home Journal. So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory.

Source: http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/checkpoint/checkpointquotes.shtml#ixzz0Ji0VUpPr&D

Relevance: This scene in this episode pretty much blew me away. Just to point out a few key things -- Glory was the 'big evil' in season 5 that Buffy had to defeat. Buffy had knowledge about something that Glory wanted. Giles was Buffy's watcher (a watcher is someone who trains slayers) until he was fired in season 3, ironically he was fired in an episode where Buffy lost her power temporarily. Nigel is a member of the Watcher's Council in England (this is the headquarters of watchers who work on supernatural research and attempt to help the Slayer -- though again, ironically, she hasn't been associated with them (unofficially) since Season 3 in the episode 'Helpless') .

I think this is an extremely important scene in the episode, if not in the series. This situation holds true in all formats globally. Anyone who has power has been ridiculed for that power. People are TERRIFIED of others that have power. They will go to great length to tear down anyone with power. We saw this with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Both of these women had TREMENDOUS power. As a result, they were ridiculed 24/7 because people were afraid of their power.


"You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, your lives, some semblance of meaning."


Again we see this with the media and other aspects of life. Why do we watch the news? So that we can hear other people's opinions about other people. Without those powerful people, the media has nothing to talk about.

Even in the work force, women are constantly trying to prove that they are 'good enough to be let in' to something. That's not to say that men don't strive for the same thing, but for a while women have had it harder. Without employees, businesses don't run effectively.

"So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory."

Just another example of the independent and strong characteristics of Buffy Summers. She is truly a strong embodiment of feminism.

Although I would love to talk more about BTVS, I will save more for later posts!

First Wave Feminism

One strategy or tactic of the First Wave was to use hunger strikes to obtain the vote for women or more support. I actually think that this would be more effective today because of the prohibition of force-feeding by the Declaration of Tokyo. Prior to this declaration – and during the first wave of feminism – women who went on hunger strikes could be force-fed to provide nourishment. Now, however, they cannot. This might allow for women to get their point across especially considering policy-makers would only have the option to appease their requests instead of force-feeding them.

I think that racism and classism definitely still divide feminist movements somewhat today. I think women who are uneducated still have their views and opinions looked down upon because they do not have a certain level of education to provide support for their ideas, which is absurd. I also think that there are too many white women in high-level positions in the feminist movement, still. There should be more African-American women, Latin-American women, Asian-American women, etc, in leadership positions within the feminist movement.

I think suffragists could have dealt with the issue of Black suffrage in a more positive way by just attempting to get both forms of suffrage ratified around the same time. The suffragists of the first wave of feminism made it seem as if one was ratified the other would never be and vice-versa, but if they were fighting for the same things then both would have definitely been ratified. In fact, it might have even proven helpful if they used examples of the ratification of one of the suffrage movements to stimulate the ratification of the other. The suffragists could have pointed out the hypocrisy of ratifying one and not the other.

I think, in order to be a successful activist in the first wave you had to be extremely charismatic and present the qualities of a leader. You can’t start a movement if you don’t step up to the plate and charm people into following you. Also, you would have to have a high level of determination and endurance. These women were all arrested and abused for decades and yet they still persevered.

I think that many young people aren’t on the radar about suffrage today because many times in history courses and what not, women’s suffrage is ‘lightly skimmed over’ unless women’s studies courses are taught at middle and high school levels, a lot of young people don’t even learn about all of these struggles unless they enroll in a course in college, and even then they have the option of whether or not to take this course.

Theorizing Public Policy: Why does it matter for women?

I think that the state maintains social inequality by not ratifying certain laws or upholding traditional practices regarding women. I haven’t experienced discrimination by the state, at least not that I am aware of. I think at this point in my life I haven’t really been exposed to the workings of the state because I am still being supported by my parents, so I only really hear of the problems that they have with the government.

I think that the early American assumption that citizens were white men perpetuates contemporary social inequities because we still view traditional roles as being fit for a white man. In the job market, a lot of white men hold the highest and most powerful positions within a company. Also, up until this year, a white man was always the president of the country. Although this has finally changed, it took America quite a while to be accepting of other races in the position of President of the United States.

I think that, yes, full equality can be achieved under our present system of democracy and capitalism. I think that if we are capable of having a half-African American man in office as President of the United States and two females running for the positions of President and Vice-President in the latest election, anything is possible for our society. While we still see a lot of negative aspects concerning the achievement of equality, there are just as many forces working to achieve equality for men, women, different races, homosexuals, etc.

I think that in order to create a more just state we need to reach the people, and not the politicians. It is important that people in a society know the pressing issues of that society, and are able to make informed decisions about how to deal with such issues. If we can reach the people, then we can reach equality.

Feminist Theory

I was not aware that there were so many different kinds of feminism. I think liberal feminism is the most persuasive because it talks about how women are unequal in society, which I completely agree with. It also talks about obtaining sexual equality for women, and I agree with this as well. I think that women ‘should’ have equality when it comes to men. I think women should especially have equality when it comes to their image in the media.

I think that the different types of feminism perpetuate or challenge myths about feminism in many different ways. The different types of feminism perpetuate myths about feminism because some of these feminist beliefs such as Marxist feminism and Radical feminism talk all about how women are treated unfairly and are oppressed, which basically makes it seem like a complaint, which perpetuates the myth that feminism is essentially just a bunch of women whining about issues, etc. However feminist beliefs such as Liberal Feminism challenges these feminist myths because it provides reasoning and understanding as to why women are treated unequally and provides solutions such as education, equal economic access, and power in order to correct this inequality.

Feminist research is different from more traditional forms of research because when feminists approach research they hope that the world will be a better place and they study different writings from women’s experiences, and they place themselves in the role of the person being researched. They also use a standpoint theory to obtain privilege over the character of gender relations.

I think that there definitely ‘is’ a such thing as a feminist method. I think that by viewing other women’s experiences and collecting historical data about women and the issues that they faced in the past, there definitely is a method for changing equality for women in the present and future.

What is a woman?

My own personal cultural context consisted of things such as being raised with Barbie dolls, the fisher price plastic kitchen play set and easy-bake ovens. Although these were admittedly fun, I never quite realized how much these toys shaped my path towards womanhood. In module three, we learned about parents buying toys geared towards a particular gender (ie: dolls for girls and dinosaurs for boys). I didn’t realize how true that was until I examined the types of things that I played with as a young girl. I definitely have my ideas of what defines the female gender vs. the male gender and these ideas were definitely shaped by childhood experiences and even some experiences as a young adult.

The dominant notions of masculinity and femininity in US society go hand-in-hand with what I have been mentioning from the start – the media. I honestly think that – while tradition and culture plays a significant role in gender definitions – the media has an even greater influence in modern day society in deeming the male and female gender for what they really are. There are too many times where we see commercials of young girls playing with a new Barbie doll or young boys playing with transformers or super soakers. Even with battery-controlled vehicles for young kids, gender makes an appearance. Usually they promote green jeeps for young boys and pink corvette ‘Barbie’ cars for girls.

People learn to ‘do’ gender in part by how they were raised and in part by how society influences their lifestyles from a young age all the way into adulthood. It’s not something that just happens spontaneously. People just don’t wake up and decide that Barbies are for girls and dinosaurs are for boys. These ideas are set in place by parents who buy gender specific toys for their young children. Scientists are always telling us that children learn the most at a very young age because they pick up on things easily. That being said, it’s no surprise that they are easily influenced into believing that the dinosaur or the Barbie is the toy that was meant for them. I’m almost certain that if a girl was raised with dinosaurs and space ships she would probably associate more with interests that are labeled ‘male specific’.

Some sources where I learned to do gender are, as I mentioned, from my parents and from watching TV and reading magazines. I know, based on magazines and life experiences, that when I am asked to attend a formal event I should show up in a dress or skirt of some sort. If I showed up in a suit or a tux I would probably receive bewildered stares.

I think that gender ranking reinforces sexism because it places the value of the male gender above that of the female gender, which is essentially what sexism does as well. Sexism is all about favoring one gender over the other. Gender ranking is all about favoring one gender over the other. I think that both concepts are extremely similar.

Just as an interesting side note to the below post...

I am currently watching episode ten of season four of Sex and the City. In this particular episode, the four girls (Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha) are discussing how women can not show their emotions in their jobs. Samantha went on a interview with a successful business man who basically told her that she couldn't handle the job herself and should consider partnering with a male. Samantha's story sparked a conversation between the women in the following scene where Miranda revealed that her partners at her law firm were constantly worried that she would be upset and cry over a legal briefing. When questioned if she ever had, Miranda responded that yes she did, but in the privacy of her own home. Charlotte then revealed that she cried once at her gallery, and the rest of her time working there was spent with her employees and employers worrying that they would upset her. Carrie revealed that she 'fake cried' to her editor when she missed a deadline, and her editor gave her sympathy and let her go.

Samantha said, and I quote "A guy gets angry in a meeting and he's a pistol. A women gets angry, and she's emotional."

A further (amusing) line from Samantha was, "What does he think I'm going to do? Get my period and ruin his empire?"

To which Miranda responded, "Yes! Some business men are so threatened by strong business women that they have to make them a woman again. Hence, you're too emotional."

I just thought this was an interesting tidbit from the series, especially since it currently relates to what we are discussing in this course!

What is women's studies?

I definitely consider myself to be a feminist. Probably even more so after listening/reading the second module. It makes me extremely elated to know that women now have so many more opportunities to obtain a well-paying job when they graduate. It is also satisfying to know that women now have the opportunity to show the magnitude of their skills and the impetus that they have to achieve leadership positions.

I would define feminism as society’s process of obtaining equal opportunities for women and women. I would also define it as the integration of women’s modern cultural and intellectual characteristics into all aspects of society. It is the process of shaping and redefining society’s view of women as a whole.

This course appealed to me specifically because I knew it would try to expand on questions that I, myself, had been trying to answer for years. Questions such as: Why are women still viewed negatively in the media, when they are viewed positively in the work force? Why is society as a whole still not completely accepting of women and their modern-day roles in society? I wanted to find out these answers, and discover some of the root issues that cause these problems and similar problems in modern society.

I don’t have any fears or anxieties about this course. I do, however, have many expectations. I wanted to learn a lot about women’s image not only in the past, but in the present – where it is most important – as well. I want to learn about the different ways in which society is trying to make efforts into changing the image of a woman. I want to learn about the different ways in which the media affects a woman’s image.

I think a lot of negative stereotypes of feminism are that feminists are basically just emotionally-charged women that only complain about their roles in different aspects of society, and I think this is just not true.

I don’t think that equality between the sexes has been achieved. I certainly think that there has been a significant break through in achieving more rights for women, but overall I think there are still areas that need a lot of improvement. For example, there are still a lot of television programs that portray women in a negative light. There are some dramas on TV where women are seen as being sexually adventurous, and only interested in sex. Yet again, there are many TV programs that have started to accept the powerful aspects and characteristics of women (ie: Bones, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, etc.). I think that some of these television shows attempt to portray women as being strong, individual characters, but in reality a male ends up coming to their rescue, much like in the television programs of the 1950s or earlier.

Outside of the media, I think that women are achieving equal rights in comparison to men. I honestly think the main issue that needs to be addressed is that of the media. There is a ridiculous amount of influence within the media that can easily alter the opinions of a society that comes from all different backgrounds. What one statement means to an upper or middle-class well-educated family can mean something completely different to a lower-class and not as well-educated family. There has to be a regulation of some sort stronger than the FCC that can balance the influence of the media on society.