The “F” Word

The point I am trying to make is that words are a mysterious, ambiguous, ambivalent and perfidious phenomenon. They are capable of being rays of light in a realm of darkness. … They are equally capable of being lethal arrows. Worst of all, at times they can be one and the other. And even both at once. 
-Vaclav Havel, "Words on Words," 1990

 
 

Here's an experiment with words you might try the next time you find yourself in a crowded, public area, say Starbuck's in the morning rush hour, or in front of any middle school in America at 8am: clear your throat, and without yelling like a fanatic, say the "F" word firmly and distinctly,

"FEMINISM."

Most of the women in the crowd will simply pretend they didn't hear you. You'll know they are pretending because they all suddenly become very uncomfortable, shifting their weight from one foot to another…repeatedly. One or two of the women in front of the middle school will not hide their displeasure at your outburst by throwing you cool, disapproving glances as they rush off to their corner office. The other women will pick up their Venti, no foam, non-fat latte and quickly get themselves the hell away from you as fast as their Ferragamo pumps will carry them.

Feminism is a word that was once a "ray of light in a realm of darkness" but over the past fifteen or so years, it has metamorphosed from a beautiful butterfly into a slimy hairy caterpillar.

The average person believes that feminism was born in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The fact of the matter is, an economic change swept Across America at precisely the same time as the feminist movement was taking shape. The change in economy forced men to admit that they could not support their family without a second wage earner, and forced women, whether they wanted to or not, into the work force. By the late 60's and early 70's, wage labor was becoming just as important to women as it was to men. And with the no-fault divorce laws forcing women to support themselves, and quite frequently their children, without the reliable financial support of a husband, young single women faced the grim reality that they could no longer look forward to a secure marriage as their mothers and grandmothers had done before them. The feminist movement told women they didn't need to depend on a man, they didn't need to wear make-up or "to swaddle [their body] and to drape it until it conformed as closely as possible to the image du jour. "(Rose L. Glickman, Daughters of Feminists, 1993 page 88) The definition of feminism twenty-five years ago was easily painted on a poster's sign and marched down Main street of Any town: "Equal Pay For Equal Work," "Sexual Freedom," "Reproductive Freedom." There also seemed to be more tolerance for the feminist movement in the early 70's. After all, how could anyone blame a woman, who was forced to work because of a divorce or death of her husband, for being angry that she was paid a "mere fifty-nine cents to every dollar a man made for the exact same work!?" (Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism is NOT the Story of My Life, 1996 page 116) the feminist movement forced people, specifically white males to reconsider the traditional role of a woman. In 1976, you could stand in a crowded public area, say the "F" word and find both men and women look at you thoughtfully and nod their heads. The word and the movement were "ray of light" and they were definitely something to think about.

But in the 1990's, something happened to feminism – something bad. The word became foul, and the movement was perceived to be fanatical. Women's organizations, which sprouted up all over the country in the early 1970's, like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), were no longer speaking of the issues women cared about. They were lumped together in one heap, and referred to, as one student put it, the "NOW crows." Feminism was so successful in bringing about equal rights for women in the late 60's and early 70's, that in 1990 they had nothing left to fight for. Feminism helped women to realize equal pay. Women at executive levels of management are paid ninety-five cents for every dollar men are paid, and a woman in an entry-level position "is likely to earn the same as her male peers." (Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, page 117) Feminism helped crush the stigma attached to premarital sex, opening the door for women's sexual freedom. It paved the way for women's right to reproductive freedom and a woman's right to a safe abortion. The organizations such as NOW and NARAL began to focus on issues that didn't affect women in significant ways. Feminism applauded professional young women, and all but ignored the problems of the young single mother. The 1991 NOW convention held only one session on children, and it focused on lesbian mothers. (Elizabeth Fox-Genovese) It had become clear to women that they had no place in modern feminism if they chose a heterosexual relationship in which to raise a family and have a meaningful career. By excluding these working mothers, both married and single, the feminist movement inadvertently gave birth to the very entity that would be its undermining in the 1990's: the "Super Mom."

For many young women entering the labor force in the early 1990's, feminism equals "super mom" or "workaholic." These young women were raised by super moms who "never felt any guilt about pursuing a high powered career while raising two youngsters." (Joan S. Lublin, "Some Adult Daughters of Super Moms' Plan to Take Another Path", The Wall Street Journal, December 28, 1995, Sec A, p1) These mother's entered the labor force during the early days of the women's movement, and they were determined to "have it all," they were workingwomen reaping the rewards of the feminist movement. According to Joann S. Lublin, young women today are very resentful that they were raised by "absentee" mothers and find themselves asking, "How can I ever live up to my fast-track mother?" But more importantly they are asking themselves, "is it worth it?" More and more women are "trying to find ways to juggle the demands of work and family, and … don't want to emulate their workaholic [mothers]." (Joanne S. Lublin) It's almost as if women have replaced the struggle to find equality with the struggle to find balance.

Young women, and I mean women like myself between the ages of 18 and 40, don't have to fight for equality with men the way our mothers did. When we entered the world, we were handed equality on a silver platter. We buy homes and cars like our mothers bought groceries, we hold gold and platinum credit cards, something our mothers never did, and we get paychecks just like our fathers. Instead of planning dinner, we plan our careers. We don't think about how a child will affect our marriages, we think about ways we can fit a child and a marriage and a career in our lives. We don't spend any time thinking about equality, in fact, we expect equality and are taken completely by surprise when we don't get it. But, isn't that what our feminist "have it all" super moms wanted for us? Wasn't their goal that one day an American woman would take for granted the same rights white men had never given a second thought to since the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

Feminism has come to mean a variety of things to a variety of people. Some equate feminism with lesbianism, "a metaphor for man-hating and male-bashing, for fanaticism, for separatism." (Rose L. Glickman) For other men, and women, the word has a "frightening connotation" meaning that a woman is "righteous, …independent, …and powerful." A feminist to these men and women is a "person with an opinion, but …a bitch." (Glickman) And let's face it; nobody wants to be a bitch, a man-hater, or a fanatic. "These words, like the word feminist, alienate men." (Glickman) Young women today want their equality, but they also want the human connection, a husband, a family, and that connection cannot be obtained by alienating men. I agree with Glickman when she says that the word feminism belongs to a bygone era. And I think most women would agree with me. As Joann S. Lublin reported, young women are looking for a way to "have it all" without sacrificing their children, husbands or their careers. Employers, such as the Bank of Montreal, and Motorola have successfully redefined "family" as a "life outside of work," permanently dispelling the super mom or mommy track stigma, allowing women to "have it all sacrificing all. (Sue Shellanbarger, Wall Street Journal, December 20, 1995, Sec B p1) We have finally won the battle our mothers started thirty years ago. We are enjoying the same rights men have enjoyed for two centuries.

If you ask any woman today if she is a feminist, the most common answer would be "Yes, but…" It's the 'but' that screams for attention. The fact that women, myself included, feel the need to qualify their definition of feminism is the telltale sign that we need a new word for what people today view as feminist. Both Rose Glickman and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese set out to give a new definition to the word feminism. Glickman found a young woman, a daughter of a feminist, who put it nicely, "feminism is about thoughtfulness, sensitivity, concern with human liberation and a sense of social responsibility." Fox-Genovese set out to define a different kind of feminism, "family feminism." She defines family feminism as all women, working-class and professionals, single and married mothers, of all races, religions and orientations all struggling to live independently and have families. The feminist movement lost sight of these women, and now, these women have no one to identify with. The largest women's organization, NOW, has no place for the professional woman and the working mother who is economically successful because they downplay the very reason for her success: she is part of a two-income marriage or union. Fox-Genovese went so far as to suggest that some women blame the feminist elite for the disintegration of the family by encouraging single-motherhood. Statistics have shown that the average single-parent family, headed by a woman, lives at or below the poverty line, something the feminist movement rarely, if ever, talks about. If the feminist movement isn't talking to the married women with or without children, and it isn't identifying with single-mothers, whom is it talking to? I think it's very possible that the anger and resentment some people are feeling towards the feminist movement today is due to the fact that both men and women are alienated from the movement in the very way they live their lives. While Glickman and Fox-Genovese have both done a wonderful job in attempting to re-define feminism, we are still stuck with the lethal arrow. That word!

In 1963, Betty Friedan wrote Feminine Mystique. She titled chapter one, "The Problem That Has No Name." In it she describes women's dissatisfaction with their lives. They were told they should be happy that they were women, and didn't have to worry about feeding a family or deal with the stress that came with holding down a job. But the "problem" persisted, and what made it unbearable for women was that no one was talking about it. It seems to me that we are right back were we started; we have a problem with no name. Today, no one talks about a single mother whose checking account is overdrawn because her minimum wage job can't support the rent and groceries for three small children. Instead we talk about "the working poor" and suggest tax breaks that amount to one extra can of Diet Coke per year and tell each other we are helping "the working poor." No one talks about the young professional woman who has no choice but to listen to crude jokes told by her male co-workers. No one mentions the working mother who works sixty hours a week in Corporate America, and puts in an extra twenty-five over time hours a week to feed and clothe her husband and children. Instead we enforce labor laws impossible to enforce, and attempt to legislate common decency through required training and call it "Sensitivity Training" which only serves to further alienate her male co-workers.

The entire topic of reproductive freedom engulfs so many aspects of a woman's life that it is comical that the feminist's movement as it stands today, is continuing the never-ending battle of a woman's right to choose right into the Twenty-First Century. And yet we allow our politicians to focus on abortion, instead of demanding that they hear us when we say that a woman's right to choose means making the decision to conceive, carry, deliver and raise a child be ours alone to make. That our decision to have a child be just as protected as our decision to terminate a pregnancy. That our decision to raise that child with a partner regardless of the nature of the relationship. While the feminist movement focuses their attention of the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, the issue of preserving fertility is completely lost. But quite frankly, that is an entirely different discussion.

Women today are just as dissatisfied as the women Friedan describes in her book. Friedan's women found a solution and a name for their problem – they called it "emancipation," "women's lib," and eventually named it "feminism." Women today have no name for their problem. I heard someone say we should call it "Equalism." I think "Equalism" has a nice ring to it. It's a nice word, for not really being a word. And besides, who could possibly be frightened by equality?

Somehow, I think that no matter what word we come up with, it will be both a ray of light and a lethal arrow. It is the nature of words.

February 1997