Post Punk Kitchen Forum

What is second wave? I don't know the term.

From what I remember from undergrad women's studies courses, first wave feminism consisted of those who fought for the right to vote (Late 19th c through early 20th c). Second wave feminism was the movement that started in the 60's and 70's and includes everything from Marxist feminism to NOW to lesbian separatism to various movements focusing on women of color. I have heard people refer to third wave feminism which would include the riot grrl movement, zines etc.

And now I have "Votes for Women" from Mary Poppins stuck in my head.

And that would be US feminist movement, as I think it is a bit different in the UK.

I got Henry VIII stuck in my head. Second verse, same as the first.

In my Women's Studies classes, we were taught that the Second Wave probably began with Simone de Beauroir's "The Second Sex" from 1949 (first published in English in 1953), but that the real beginning was probably the lingering effects of the "We can do it!" and Rosie the Riveter stuff from WWII, where women were told that it was their patriotic duty to go out and work in factories and stuff, and then, once the war was over, they were told not only that they shouldn't do that, but that there were all sorts of BS biological and physical reasons why they couldn't (even though most of them just had been working outside the home a few years earlier.)

my understanding is that the suffragist movement (in the U.S. and beyond) was the hallmark of the first wave, like vantine said. second wave thought and writing was prominent from the 50's through 70's, and i associate it with a rejection of the traditional female role and in some ways a rejection of a traditionally feminine aesthetic. the aspects of second wave feminism that i think jordan is saying she has a problem with is an absolute criticism of pornography associated with andrea dworkin etc, what some of us feel is a tendency toward transphobia, and a critique of femininity and what may be seen as a demand that there is only one "right" way to be a feminist. i see third wave feminism as being more inclusive of all types of women, including those in traditionally female societal roles, and being more sex-positive.

edit: just wanted to add that i pretty much only criticized the second wave up there. in addition to what i wrote, that was also obviously an era of extremely important victories for feminism, like roe v. wade, that third wave feminism should certainly never take for granted!

Yes, that's what I mean. I had/have a serious problem with the "all pornography is rape" set, which seems to intersect with the transphobic, weird separatist, anti-femininity set. It was really sad that the women's studies classes I took in my undergrad were some of the most alienating, condescending, and closed minded classes I have ever taken. I hated to think it, but in those classes, where my professor literally YELLED at the class about the violence of heterosexual sex and the fact that no woman can ever truly consent to perform in pornography, I didn't want my feminist beliefs associated with that kind of nonsense. I suppose when I say "second wave," that's what I mean, which, now that I think about it, does something of a disservice to the positive work that did come out of that time period. I guess I use the term as a genre rather than an era (if that makes sense). I'm definitely not a scholar or particularly well versed. I just know what I like and what I really, really don't like. That which I don't like, I'd named "second wave," but probably should more accurately be called something else.

Yes, I think it is best to specify what factions or theories you dislike rather than an entire wave of feminism. I could post some nice condescending statements about third wave, but it doesn't hold well to everyone in the movement. There will always be disagreement in the movement. And I imagine 40 years from now the 5th wave will be whinging about people my age for being too something. Or not enough something else.

For the record, I imagine I am closer in age to third wave but I cut my teeth on the second wave works and have a real fondness for so many of those leaders. I think in some ways their reactions paved the way for more nuanced reactions later. And a lot of third wavin' I don't relate to as well. I look at the queer movement the same way. The 70s era would be seen as less inclusive I'm sure, but they got and kept the ball rolling. I couldn't be as queer positive as I am without their actions and then subsequent reactions. Being able to question 40 years of activism shows me where my own prejudices lie and how to better combat them. And also where the faults of the current movement may be improved.
Ever onward.

Speaking of challenging your own beliefs and assumptions, as someone on here mentioned- I just had a thought about how I have a deeply rooted belief that men should be gentlemen. And I don't know if I am thinking about it in the right manner.

I think what I am trying to say is that I get a little irritated when a man doesn't hold the door open for me or do the whole "ladies first" thing. Is this a feminist issue or just an issue of general manners?

Heh heh. I get annoyed if a man does the "ladies first" thing. I am no lady and don't need to be first.
I think it is an issue of gender stereotypes that die slow deaths or not at all.

Do you get irritated if women don't hold the door open for you? I mean it's general manners to hold the door open or at least look back and hold the door open behind you for the next person as you walk through. But why should all men be obligated to hold doors open for all women?

I do get irriated if a women doesn't hold the door open for me (or anyone really) as a general courtesy.
I guess I think that everyone should do that for everyone.
I don't think all men should open the doors for all women at all times, that would just be time consuming and not necessary.

But in terms of dating- I think that is probably what I originally meant in referring to gentlemenlyness (yes, that is a technical term). My boyfriend always holds the door open for me. When we are walking down a street he is obsessive about making sure he walks on the side closest to the street (I guess as "protection" incase a car were to run us over. Which, I realize is silly, but it's still kinda sweet) He always offers his coat or sweater if it is chilly.
Generally, he is just more observant and respectful of women. And I do like that. It is probably conditioning but in other aspects of our relationship we are very even Stephen. We split the housework, split the bills, etc.

Does it make me less of a feminist if I like being treated "like a lady"? (even though I am not what a "lady" would be considered- I burp and fart and curse in front of people and I am just generally crude all around once you get to know me :)

I'm pretty sure that the original point of this bit of etiquette was that, when mud splashed from the streets (as would often happen in an era of horses and dirt roads), it would get on the man's overcoat rather than the woman's dress.

For me, there's a difference in what you expect a man to do vs. feeling taken care of by your partner (whether male or female). Some men show that they care by opening doors and paying for dates in what would be considered a traditional sense. Other men might show they care by cooking dinner or cleaning up around the house. So I guess it depends on whether it feels nice to know your partner cares and appreciates you vs. it feels nice to have someone who is fitting into what you consider a "man". I like it when my boyfriend buys dinner not because it's what I think he SHOULD be doing, but because he's doing it as a gesture of love. I don't think that makes me any less of a feminist.

When I was a freshman in college (back in the 60s?) I took a class where we read Susan Brownmiller and, um... other people. (It was a really long time ago.) I remember being so confused and turned off. "Rape is a system by which all men deliberately keep all women in a constant state of fear," or words to that effect. I just felt awful about the stuff we were being told. I remember going to a couple meetings of a Men Against Violence Against Women thing, and being just generally lost and confused.

Wait, I still am.

There, there, Grampa. Don't you be worrying your head about us wimmenfolks; we never can decide what we want!

Yeah - I should have worded that better.

However, my beefs with Dworkin et al aren't whinging (not that you said they were, but you know). I believe a lot of the ideas they espoused were not just misguided but actually hateful, and I am majorly not down with that. I guess my carelessness in describing their crusade as "second wave" just shows how easy it is for some bad ideas to taint a whole sea of good ones, which is sad.

I read it was because only prostitutes walked on the outside of the footpath when with a man.

But eeeww http://www.trivia-library.com/a/why-men ... -woman.htm

My sister has all of a sudden decided that pornography is evil and anti-feminist. I don't really know where it came from but it is frustrating because she is right and no-one else can have a valid opinion. She also likes to say how much she prefers men to women because all women "are bisque-y and stupid and do nothing more than try to make boys like them". I don't really know how to respond to this kind of thing.

I'm in the same boat. I don't think all sex is rape, and I think there are certainly ways women can participate in the porn industry that are no more exploitative than working at any other job.

I disagree with you that those few ideas I don't agree with taint the whole sea of good ones though. I think you can still be a feminist, without agreeing to every theory under the tent. We had a thread where we agreed that the basic assumption that makes you a feminist is that there should be equality between sexes in terms of opportunity, wages etc. And true equality that takes into account the unique challenges women face, not just making them equal provided that they do everything the same way men do. We have all the concessions that allow women to stay in the workplace by protecting them from discrimination, at least in part because of the feminist movement (the other part is that it is economically inefficient to push highly qualified women out of the workforce).

I feel like I have benefited far too much from feminism to be willing to disavow everything it has made possible for me, just because I disagree with a few ideas. Same thing with veganism - some vegans think having pets is unethical, but just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not vegan. I feel like you're vegan or a feminist if you agree with the basic tenet of the movement, you don't have to agree with all of it because both of those groups are pretty inclusive tents and include a fair bit of nutjobbery.

Oh, I mean more that the bad stuff taints perception of the good stuff, not that it actually taints the good stuff. Man, I'm sucking at expressing myself. I wouldn't disavow feminism because of Andrea Dworkin, that's for sure!

Gardy loo! This has always been my understanding as well. Also, in Elizabethan times (and presumably before), a man was supposed to give a lady his left arm and walk on the outside, which left his sword arm free if they were threatened.

Oh yes, I had forgotten about that one! Unhand her you cad!

Another interesting flash from the past etiquette that I had no idea about, men were expected to get into a car BEFORE the woman, not after. It's so the woman could get into the car or carriage without flashing him her pantaloons. I have no idea where I read that though, so I could be wrong.

Grandpa Walton was a radical gay communist! (Or, at least, the actor who played him was.)

The "Myrmidon theory?" Here's a charitable interpretation if you're interested.