The Best of Both Worlds

Logan Potter is a Media Arts major with a journalism emphasis from Mountain Home, Idaho, so Boise State isn’t too far from home. Writing has always been her one strength without fail, so journalism was the clear path for her. Logan plans to pursue a Master’s degree in Screenwriting, Journalism, or Film after graduation, and she would love to become an entertainment journalist in the future. When she isn’t studying, Logan enjoys reading and writing film reviews, sometimes watching up to three films in one weekend.

The Best of Both Worlds

‘Crossing the aisle,’ a common expression for overcoming political differences to achieve unification and action, is a sentiment that appears to be just out of reach in today’s sociopolitical sphere, especially when it comes to the achievement of gender equality. Since first wave feminists swept the United States with dreams of suffrage and equal representation to their male counterparts, dozens of other factors have been adopted into the feminist movement, creating what critics of the movement call “The ‘F’ Word.” Feminism has become so complex in recent years, including movements such as ecofeminism and LGBTQIA issues, that women are unsure whether or not they truly identify as a feminist. It is this uncertainty and lack of common ground that has lead feminism away from intersectionality and deeper into multi-issue feminism that often breaks away from norms, a trend that might not be benefitting the movement. It is a combination of the successes of previous waves of feminism, as well as their most notable failures that have created the feminism we are exposed to today. The feminist movement has succeeded in destabilizing the patriarchy through the freedom of gender identity and revealing the mystique of feminine fulfillment, yet fails to move beyond the extent of unseating the system due to an underrepresentation of intersectionality and recognition of privilege.

To begin, an analysis of the feminist movement could not be adequately complete without first defining the subject at hand. Citing a dictionary definition of the movement would be misleading as to what my understanding of feminism truly includes; my definition of feminism, for example, differs from that of many individuals in the (arguably) current third wave. First, I believe that for the purpose of this analysis and my visible status in this society, I must first recognize my privilege as a white, wealthy, cisgender woman; a definition of my personal feminism would be incomplete without the disclaimer of my inability to identify with most underprivileged groups due to my unearned privilege. Second, consideration of the idea that we may no longer be in the age of the third wave and instead a fourth wave of feminism is crucial, as it has adapted to the current political environment, especially in acknowledgment of victims of sexual assault. For these reasons, my definition of feminism is as follows: Feminism is an ever-changing movement with a heavy emphasis on political environment, particularly divided into waves. The movement ought to be intersectional in nature, and is often inclusive of moderate and progressive women alike regardless of the “feminist” title. I use the terms “ought” and “often” in this definition for the sake of inclusivity of all feminisms, for each has individual philosophies and missions that may not include the same aspects as my own, and for this analysis, inclusivity of the waves and subsets is necessary.

A definition of “the system” we live in, the patriarchy, is just as important as that of feminism; without patriarchy, feminism would have no need for existence. For myself, I choose to define patriarchy by its social and political control—not just one or the other. Because of this, I personally and for the sake of this argument define patriarchy as the overarching system of control that is perpetuated by a hierarchy of privilege, most notably occupied by classifications of white, cisgender, male, wealth or any combination of privileged socioeconomic traits. Every individual has some privilege over another, and this is reflected in said definition.

Feminism has, rather unintentionally, changed ideas surrounding sex and gender in the status quo within recent years. While many countries, the United States included, determine eligibility for legal gender change recognition based on local or state practices, the feminist movement for equality has encouraged many individuals to “come out,” or bravely announce their identity to their world, regardless of whom that circle may include (Henig 65). I believe that with the shift of new acceptance came a shift in the patriarchy as well; in reference to the definition of patriarchy, altered ideas of gender identity in society begin to question the privilege that cisgender individuals really hold, when certain feminisms are fighting for the equality of all identities on the gender spectrum. This change stemmed from a long and hard-fought battle, a surprising notion once people became informed of groups all over the world who already recognized gender representations other than male or female, like Native Americans (two-spirit) and Asia, where a third gender is commonly recognized (Henig 69). This knowledge was implemented into feminist ideals in the 2000’s, and the rest is (literally) history. The evidence written in this reading by Henig is one of the primary reasons that I used the word “ought” in my definition of feminism—while feminists have historically used intersectionality in their practices and they ought to continue, the fight for gender identity hasn’t always been on the radar of feminists who choose not to be intersectional. Overall, this marks one of the most prominent successes of the third wave, yet may later be considered one of their deepest failures as well.

Women are often shamed in the status quo for being content with a life of being a housewife and allowing their husbands to support them while they stay home with the children—this stigma can be attributed to Betty Friedan’s 1963 “The Feminine Mystique.” While many women at the time felt empowered to no longer hold a submissive role to their husbands, I am firm in my belief that the liberation of yesterday’s women has the potential to be a burden on today’s. That said, Friedan brings an interesting point to the hypothetical table; how did the mystique of feminine fulfillment become the core of contemporary American culture (Friedan 429)? On one hand, this question shows the extent to which change can disrupt the patriarchy, yet it also brought third wave feminists to the point of questioning how correct Friedan really was about what the empowered woman needed to look like to support feminist ideals. At least a subset of modern feminism has reconstructed the idea that a woman can be just empowered from her home as she is at a high-paying position of a company, and this success is one that I believe to be one of the strongest in building a third wave foundation—that is, until stigmas began to surround women of color, and only some feminisms chose to fight against privilege rather than with the flow of it, an issue prominent in today’s environment.

It wasn’t until Anita Hill testified to a row of white men about sexual assault that intersectionality was even proposed as an ideal of feminism, and unfortunately, many subsets of the movement still fail to adequately acknowledge the threats that ignorance can have on the reputation of a movement (Siegel 108). In order to remedy a lack of intersectionality in feminisms, authors Daisy Hernandez and Pandora L. Leong suggest coalitions, or an alliance for combined action. These coalitions usually find a common platform, i.e. “Our feminism is about social justice.” After seeking this common ground, the coalition can maintain their individual identities as social causes while still seeking a common good (Disch 641). While the idea is sound on paper, and many coalitions do succeed, we live in a society with one of the most polarized political states in history and our actions need to reflect such a social change. In order to adopt this intersectionality, however, feminists must first acknowledge their privilege and unpack their “invisible knapsack.” Peggy McIntosh writes, “As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism…but had been taught not to see…white privilege.” This experience is one that many white people are accustomed to; not having to claim credibility for privilege is much easier than realizing that you are advantaged above almost all others (Disch 78). Feminism has, unfortunately, failed to recognize its historical privilege in its entirety, which Siegel cites is the reason that second wave feminists hold distaste towards the third wave movement. The Third Wave takes advantage of the privileges handed to them by the Second Wave, and the Third Wave fails to incorporate intersectionality even now. Without the entirety of privilege recognition, the movement will not only keep the stigma it currently holds, but it will continue to make women unsure of their identities, therefore failing to claim complete gender equality. For these reasons, feminism will never completely unseat the patriarchy, thereby causing an endless cycle of living in society defined by systemic, privileged control.

All in all, I would agree that feminism has began to unseat the system of patriarchy; the extent to which they have succeeded is mute until the movement can adopt the much-needed and often unrecognized practices of intersectionality and recognition of individual privilege in the status quo, as feminism is not a blanket fix to gender inequality, when socioeconomic status and race play equal parts in the fight for rights. The successes of gender freedom and feminine fulfillment, while they ought not be undermined or underappreciated, are only small steps in the larger battle that must ensue in order to achieve equality for more than just women who happen to be white, cisgender, wealthy or all of the above. If we as a society truly want the best of both worlds, feminism is going to have to compromise on its traditional and one-off stances in order to open the doors to a broader and more inclusive outlook on the future.