A Clearer View of The Feminist Movement

Dubois paints a clear picture of feminism’s history. The definition she constructs is extremely appropriate for our class. First, she stipulates that the politics of feminism are “an analysis which tries to explain why and how women are oppressed” (1). This part of the definition relates to the beginning of feminism in the United States. After reading the “Declaration of Sentiments” from the Seneca Falls Conference, the list of “candid” facts show us how Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott analyzed the issues that plagued their lives. In specific, the authors highlight women’s suffrage first in their list. Eventually, this cause became the main issue to define the first wave of feminism in the late 19^th century. Next, the second wave of feminism began with analyzing the “Problem that Has No Name” that Friedan described in her article that we read for last class.

The second part of Dubois definition states feminism is “a vision of a society in which women are liberated and sex role stereotypes are obliterated” (1). This aspect of feminism covers all of the things we have discussed in class so far. In fact, it can be broken down into two parts, which describe the waves. First, women look to be liberated in society. Eventually getting the constitution and its amendments to provide for the rights of both men AND women achieves this goal. Next, the obliteration of sex role stereotypes can also cover the second wave’s chase of sexual equality with movements such as CAKE.

From these two parts of the definition by themselves, a new issue presents itself. Sojourner Truth follows the suit of strong women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott and raises her voice. She says that although she is a woman, nothing that so-called “feminists” are trying to accomplish really applies to her life as an African American woman. It will be interesting to learn more about how the history of feminism addresses the issue of diversity. Or if it does at all…

Feminism and the Sexual Revolution

Exactly who is considered a feminist? Well it is no surprise that there is a stereotype that is associated with being a feminist. As we discussed in class, and Levy mentions it in Female Chauvinist Pigs, the feminist stereotype is a loud, overly opinionated, very liberal, anti-male, non-shaving, no make-up wearing, au natural woman. But like most stereotypes, not all feminists share these characteristics. However, what feminists do have in common is their desire for establishing equal rights for women. After reading the excerpt from Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, I learned about some of the different groups of feminists, such as sex-positive feminist, radical feminist, anti-porn feminists etc. However, after reading these two readings in particular, I am no longer convinced that all of these feminist groups actually did anything to further establishing equal rights for women. In particular, I am baffled by the group Cake. Rather than furthering women’s rights this group seems to be more focused on furthering society’s acceptance of sexual equality. Levy quotes the group’s mission statement, which is “The new sexual revolution is where sexual equality and feminism finally meet” (Levy 2005: 70). Now my question is where does feminism fit in this group. I understand that there is connection between the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution. I agree with and support feminists’ efforts to dissolve the sexual double standard. Thus, my question remains how are these CAKE parties that are filled with “hot girls and small garments” helping defeat female oppression (75)? I think that Susan Brownmiller’s opinion of this raunch culture parallels mine. “You think you’re being brave, you think you’re being sexy, you think you’re transcending feminism. But that’s bullshit” (Levy 2005: 82).

Kirsten - Female Chauvinist Pigs

The overview of raunch culture presented in the introduction and Raunch Culture chapter of Female Chauvinist Pigs made me reflect upon the extremely strong presence of the sexuality and the female body in popular culture. Many of the examples she presented, namely the various television shows and celebrities who have contributed to the raunch culture were familiar to me, which I think is a testament to its obvious prevalence. In particular, Ariel Levy referenced the relationship between athletics and athletic women and sexuality throughout the chapter “Raunch Culture”; as an athlete, this jumped out at me. Levy uses the examples of Olympian swimmers Amanda Beard and Haley Clark posing nude and next-to-nude in magazines, commenting that the “collective effect of these pictures…made it almost impossible to keep sight of the women’s awesome physical gifts” (20). Later, Levy speculates, “why can’t we be sexy and frisky and in control without being commodified?” This immediately made me think of Brandi Chastain, a prominent member of the 1999 U.S. women’s national soccer team. Though she is a phenomenal athlete and scored the penalty kick versus China that gave the U.S.A. the gold medal in the 1999 Women’s World Cup, rather than being known for having a good athletic career, she became notorious as a result of her World Cup celebration:

http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/brandi-chastain.jpg

This picture was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated, Time, and Newsweek. Her celebration was reacted to like an incident, despite the fact that male soccer players often remove their jerseys in celebration. Following the World Cup, Brandi Chastain posed nude for Gear magazine, a decision not unlike those of Amanda Beard and Haley Clark. Levy asks, “if you really believed you were both sexy and athletic, wouldn’t it be enough to play your sport with your flawless body and your face gripped with passion in front of the eyes of the world?” (44). To me, that is exactly what Chastain’s celebration imparted on the thousands of people who witnessed it, yet it sparked some controversy, and she still posed nude. Levy’s explanation is that to be sexy the athlete has to be taken out of the context of their sport, that “sexy” and “athletic” are not yet mutually inclusive, yet I don’t see why they can’t be.