Bitch Shop!

3rd-wave Feminism (essentially)

I decided to take a page outta Tim's blog and visit Bitch and BUST for a look at what all of Helmbrecht & Love's fuss was about, and the image above was, literally, the first thing I saw on Bitch's homepage. Considering that H & L point out that shopping and consumerism are part of both magazines (why are H & L calling them zines? Both identify as magazines, and appear far different in form and content than zines), I felt that the title and above image were an appropriate criticism of 3rd-wave feminism (160). More on this in a moment, but first a personal declaration (again responding to Tim's need to identify his own context vis a vis feminism).

I actually do consider myself a "good gauge of this kind of thing"; as I'm sure everyone has heard me say ad nauseum, I grew up in a counter-cultural mix of 3rd-wave feminism and queer culture, with an incredible dose of what H&L (snobbishly) call "the casual and hedonistic approach to sexuality" thrown in for good measure. And I consider myself a part of these movements, so the following criticisms and analyses (as well as the previous) are offered from love.


So Barbara offered us a challenge in an email from last Friday by asking us to "tease out what the third wave is all about," and it was with that in mind that I approached H&L's article. I came up with some key features of 3rd-wave feminism, fished out of examples from H&L:

• A focus on agency and individualism: as H&L note, both magazines feature articles that encourage women to make their own choices about their lives, especially in areas that have been traditionally verboten to feminists (such as sewing and cooking, shopping, blunt expression of sexuality, etc.) (156-8, et. al.)
• A focus on the individual rather than the institutional: this one kinda overlaps with the last one, but is more marked by the absence of the institutional criticism that was a big part of 1st and 2nd wave feminism. H&L point this out when analyzing one article's stance on cooking and cleaning, stating that "this reader fails to acknowledge the social conventions and oppressive institutions that compel women to cook for a household in the first place" (158). 3rd-wave feminists just tend to overlook, avoid, ignore, or sometimes refuse to discuss institutional structures of oppression, possibly as a reaction to 2nd-wave's focus on equalizing institutional opportunities.
• "Domesticity is uber-cool": H&L seem to view this aspect of 3rd-wave feminism with at least suspicion (if not disgust), but note that Bitch and BUST (especially) both seem to promote housekeeping, cooking, crafting, fashion, shopping, and other activities associated with patriarchal women's roles (160). I would go even further than H&L do to assert that the fashionably-domestic 3rd-wave feminist extends even to homemakers and stay-at-home moms; many of the "hardcore" lesbian feminists I grew up with--women who definitely epitomized the anger, intellect, and sass that is exemplified in Bitch (and particularly praised by H&L)--are now happy, married, heterosexual, domestic moms. Assimilation? I don't think so--it stays tied into the agency and individualism of the movement.
• Appropriation of derogatory terms: H&L also mention the trend, most notably in the name of the magazine, towards taking back terms like "bitch" (as queer-studies has done with "queer") and turning them into a positive ethos (161-2). 3rd-wave feminism is rampant with the flipping of traditional epithets aimed at women, and probably the most successful and mainstreamed example of this is the contemporary use of the word "douchebag" (or more commonly, "douche"). Formerly a term, originally associated with the Italian-American street lexicon, to refer to women, it is now used so frequently in the popular lexicon that it can be heard weekly or daily on South Park, The Daily Show, and even the nightly news; however, its contemporary usage is limited strictly to men. Its mainstream usage is quite recent (only the past five years or so), but in my experience has been in use by 3rd-wave feminists for at least fifteen years.
• One important one that I didn't find much example of in H&L is sexuality. The closest example is when H&L criticize a BUST editor, Tracie Egan, for promoting a "casual and hedonistic approach to sexuality" that "is audacious sexuality" (157). H&L conclude that "the interruption of mainstream discourses on women's sexuality is significant and encouraging, yet this sassy and sexy ethos is not necessarily smart." The problem is that H&L overlook this as a key feature of 3rd-wave feminism--the ability to bluntly express one's personal sexuality; while H&L acknowledge the agency in Egan's article, they characterize Egan's response as young, foolish, and problematic for teachers. In other words, H&L dismiss Egan because of her apparent unconcern for STDs, and in doing so they dismiss the ethos of her sexuality. For 3rd-wave feminism, which is mostly dominated by young women, sexuality is something that should be above criticism. While 1st and 2nd-wave feminism advances womens' sexuality significantly, these movements still left plenty of room to criticize some women for their sexuality; for example, in Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics, George Carlin comically remarks that "I  also happen to like it when feminists attack these fatass housewives who think there's nothing more to life [than having a baby] every nine months." If even George Carlin is noticing feminists attacking other women for their sexuality (which does definitely include the reproductive phase of womens' lives), it seems clear that women's sexuality was not above reproach in earlier feminist movements. Again, 3rd-wave feminism seems to take many reactionary stances to 2nd-wave feminism, and one of those positions is to value sexuality as a topic where criticism tends to be taboo.

I've covered a lot of shit in this blog, and I think I've already written way more than I needed to. Hopefully this will make for good discussion on Tuesday.