Lynn Chancer, author of After the Rise and Stall of American Feminism, on American feminism and moving the gender revolution forward
Feminist consciousness has grown so rapidly in the last decade that it is hard to keep up with the fast pace of unfolding developments in popular culture, academic writing, law and feminist-influenced blogging. More and more people are willing to embrace the term ‘feminism’ as representative of a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional movement. Feminism is experiencing a cultural renaissance even amidst concurrent backlash. In terms of progress, perhaps no example is clearer than what happened in American politics before and immediately following the mid-term elections of November 2018, when a record number of women were elected to the now Democratically- controlled US House of Representatives. Media coverage of their January 2019 swearing in referred to the ‘year of the woman1,’ and projected a new era of greater participation and gender-related political consciousness as dawning.
In some ways, new energies have indeed been activated. Perhaps never before has the desire for an American President who is a woman been stronger: hopes for this historical ‘first’ were raised but not fulfilled by Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote though not the Electoral College. Eagerness for women to enter politics has also been catalyzed by a sense of threat that hovers, somewhat ominously, over the security of feminist gains made over the last half century since the second wave. There is good reason to fear that reproductive options encompassing abortion rights could be turned back if President Donald Trump is able to appoint more conservative justices to the Supreme Court who are committed to overturning 1973’s iconic Roe v. Wade.
Feminism is experiencing a cultural renaissance even amidst concurrent backlash.
On the other hand, as I contend in After the Rise and Stall of American Feminism: Taking Back A Revolution, feminist progress should be at once acknowledged and placed in historical perspective. For example, National Public Radio aptly summarizes how the number of women in the House of Representatives grew from 110 to 127, a 15% increase from the last Congress which includes other “firsts” – i.e., the first Native American, Muslim and youngest (ever) female members of the House. Yet, stepping back further shows that this progress (on the one hand) only moved the percentage of women Congressional members from 20.6 to 23.7% (on the other). For much to my surprise in researching the book, the US remains behind many other countries in women’s public political participation: whereas in the 1970s, the US was relatively ahead of other countries in terms of their/our participation in national legislatives; the Interparliamentary Union ranked America as 52nd in 1997, which fell by 2018, to 104th. Overall, the number of women participating in political office in the US is shockingly low compared with the rest of the world. Why – and why the worsening rather than improvement?
For one thing, differentiating the US social context from that of other countries is that, unlike most advanced democracies from Australia to France and (of course) Scandinavia, women, and families, are not yet assisted by easy and affordable availability of high quality, universal day-care as they pursue their educations, their campaigns, their lives. Yes, advances have been made so that (say) in New York City, universal pre-K is now available; feminist sociologists nationally have advocated for and have made progress in successfully pressuring employers and legislators to more generously ensure paid parental leave at workplaces. But, while meaningful, the assistance available to women and families remains a far (and even measly, class-biased) cry from what early feminists of the second wave originally envisioned as one of their priorities going back to the 1970s, namely, affordable and high-quality daycare for all. Without this, some women may be able to run for office and pursue their educations but maybe not to the extent – and in the kind of numbers – required for more people, across classes and races and sexualities, to be able to achieve parity in the political, educational and economic spheres without feeling hindered, and arguably held back, by inadequate social provision of family-based assistance as provided in other comparable societies.
Of course, this is not all that has limited women moving into the public sphere of politics in equal or greater numbers than occurs in other parts of the world. Other obstacles pertain too: for example, the mass-mediated world of culture and news coverage may still give many women good reason to hesitate about whether their personalities, their looks, their backgrounds, will be scrutinized in ways that reflect continuing sexism should they/we become ‘public’ figures. Whether recalling chants of “lock her up” that Hillary faced (cries subtly, or not so subtly, redolent of coercive associations); or references to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” because of her background that, although irrelevant, would certainly make most people feel anxious and under attack; or, most recently, the targeting of that youngest new Congressional member, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for stigmatization as a (so what!) Democratic socialist: hardly can such frequent gender (in)civilities in the public sphere have no effect. Rather, whether in politics or as also happens when movie, television or pop music stars find their personalities and looks placed under kindred magnifying glasses likewise tainted by sexism, entering the ‘public sphere’ can predictably appear an unappealing prospect despite the hopeful fact that, nonetheless, increasing numbers of women are doing so.
So, what is to be done? I suggest in After the Rise and Stall of American Feminism that the only way to ensure coming closer to the realization of earlier and ongoing feminist dreams is through concerted collective, and not only individual, actions – a social benefit that the #MeToo movement has aptly incorporated and appreciated. Moving the gender revolution forward still requires calling out sexism in cultural accounts and representations that too often remain unequally harsh and intimidating for women (and sometimes for men, for people, in general). Thus whether or not one chooses to have children, policies ought to be formulated on the basis of what people most require – in common but also differently across variegated classes, races, genders and sexualities – to realize genuine and meaningful options. Universally available and high-quality daycare is not the only – though it is certainly one – important step waiting to be enacted in the US if we are ever to witness full gender parity not only in the House of Representatives but the public and private spheres of all our daily lives.
Start reading After the Rise and Stall of American Feminism »
1 "'Year of the Woman' Indeed: Record Gains in the House," Denise Lu and Keith Collins, The New York Times, November 16, 2018.
.jpg){kind=link}
Comments