Dear Gail,
What were you thinking when you penned this letter to young American women? After listing the various obstacles facing women today -- discrimination, sexual harassment, violence, oppression -- you say:
What with all that, it looks like there's plenty on your plate. And if you don't feel like dwelling on the non-problems, if you automatically assume that a woman has as much right to have a terrific career and exciting adventures as any guy, that's great. For the entire history of recorded civilization, people had ideas about women's limitations, and their proper (domestic) place in the world. That all changed in my lifetime -- came crumbling down. The fact that I got to see it, in the tiny sliver of history I inhabit, just knocks me out. You taking it for granted knocks me out.
On one hand, I kinda get it. This column (along with your new book) is a victory dance for feminist progress. The ability of young women to take inequality for granted ... touchdown??? Thanks for the pat on the head, Gail. I am frankly a little appalled at your framing that young women need feminism like chimpanzees need water buffalo when in fact there are swaths of women in every demographic who have been skeptical about the movement.
Maybe I'm jaded, Gail.
But this prototypical young woman you are writing to -- the one who couldn't care less about gender
discrimination, who stumbles upon it at her first job in complete shock
-- is the biggest myth you have perpetuated since you tried to call the Black man in the presidential race "disturbingly Ivy League."
I am not going to front. I don't have the regression analysis on young women and attitudes around gender. But when campus activity fairs
roll around and there are tables for a dozen gender-based
orgs, one can't deny that the movement for gender equality is alive -- and
that many young women are active participants. Yeah, many may not
even call it (gasp!) feminism. But I hear young women speak their
truths about gender marginalization every day, whether it is anorexia,
race, violence against women, economic justice, health care
discrimination, sex education, breast cancer or many other issues of
interest. Wish you could hear them, too.
I am getting tired of having the work of young women rendered invisible in one fell swoop by a few older feminists who clearly don't take the time to talk to listen to them. I would love to have more inter-generational dialogues about feminism with women like you, Gail. But it's difficult to know where to begin, when your book bears the title When Everything Changed. Everything has far from changed, Gail. You needn't look any farther than the publication you write for, the New York Times, to know that the more things change, the more things stay the same:
The 20 top occupations of women last year [2007] were the same as half a century ago: secretary, nurse, grade school teacher, sales clerk, maid, hairdresser, cook and so on.
Further, the same article notes:
The proportion of female state legislators has been stuck in the low 20 percent range for 15 years; women's share of state elective executive offices has fallen consistently since 2000, and is now under 25 percent. The American political pipeline is 86 percent male.
I haven't even begun to break down how women of color have had varied experiences when measuring progress from the '60s. I'll just say that my own mother and grandmother could have cared less about girdles and flight attendant jobs. Race discrimination and the right to care for one's own children while serving in a domestic capacity for your white employer are some forms of sexism that saddled their lives decades ago and today. A narrative that takes into consideration some of these complexities don't seem to be apparent in your letter to young women like me.
Mainly, Gail, I want you to know one thing: You can't call it even yet. No matter how much "progress" you observe, now is the time to shed light on disparate treatment of women and girls. As a young feminist of color in the movement, the only thing that knocks me out is the tendency some feminists have to say the fight is over, when battle lines have been clearly drawn and the true victory has yet to be won.
In Sisterhood,
Rose S. Afriyie
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Letter to Gail Collins: Please stop hating on young women .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17007
Rose, it baffles me that we could have been at Michigan at the same time and never met. Are you still living in Ann Arbor? we HAVE to crossed paths at some time.
Back to the topic - I agree.
I think this letter was written in a great fit of emotion. She just seemed so emotional at how things have changed since she was young, I agree that there is still more work to be doen, but this sounds more like a parent wailing at how their child grew up into an adult. I can barely make up words when I am emotional.
This is so ridiculous to me, because I can't figure out for the life of me what older generations want. On one hand, we activists are told that we should appreciate what has been achieved, and stop bitching about how much "needs to be done yet." On the other hand, young people are constantly criticized for our apathy towards just about everything.
If Gail Collins is so concerned about how young women take feminist achievement "for granted," maybe she should start writing open letters to a society that constantly wants to to proclaim that we live in a post-feminist (and now post-racial) world, where equality has been achieved because of do-gooder baby boomers, and current citizens should be more concerned with personal improvement and individual achievement. OH wait, that sounds like Social Darwinist free market ideology from 100 years ago. But Gail is telling me about "...when everything changed!!!"
I absolutely HATE people who categorize one group as ONE person. People who slump millions of young women as ONE person who takes feminism and progress for granted... 1.2 billion Muslims all over the world as ONE terrorist... a million Mexican Americans as ONE illegal alien... etc
it's a stupid, pointless statement. She automatically loses for categorizing and slumping one large group as one person.
I'll just say that my own mother and grandmother could have cared less about girdles
Anyone who downplays girdles has never been an 11-year-old forced to wear one to school and rendered almost unable to breathe as a result.
Working class women who didn't wear girdles? Did not get hired. Showing your jiggly ass was enough to get you fired and it was all perfectly legal. This was true for domestic workers, waitresses, barmaids and all the rest of us--the women in my family took these kinds of jobs, too. And girdles were required for these jobs, as bras are STILL required.
BTW, this kind of drive-by comment (about the girdles) upsets me far more than the stuff Gail is talking about... and its far more common in Blogdonia: a general erasure of the experiences of older women. We mention girdles because they were DAMNED painful, constricting, oppressive and AWFUL. Not to be frivolous.
Yeah, I'm sure girdles are really awful. But Rose's point is that for women of color and other marginalized women, there are problems so much bigger that still persist now, that they really didn't have time to worry about girdles or to celebrate their demise.
Perspective. It's what Collins lacks.
Gail's thesis from the above paragraph seems to be that because a certain group of women and men now have expectations of equality that everything has changed. What's missing in that is that just because expectations, for a certain class and demographic, have changed doesn't mean that we have a system that affirms that equality. A change in perception, while an achievement, shouldn't be confused with the real accomplishment of making an unjust system just. This also obscures the fact that patriarchal system that we have in place functions by being unexamined, that certain people take for granted that there is equality. In fact, the rhetoric of equality, what Gail seems to be arguing is a good thing as it is ingrained in a certain group of people, is an integral part of the patriarchy that feminism is struggling against.
Those, of course, are just some quick thoughts based on a paragraph and a post about the book. I would be curious to know what people who have read the book know fully think of it.
It reads like she is trying to talk about a paradigm shift in the attitudes of women (and perhaps society at large), but if you want to go off on a 'fuck you things aren't perfect yet' rant, go for it.
@daveNYC
"It reads like she is trying to talk about a paradigm shift in the attitudes of women (and perhaps society at large), but if you want to go off on a 'fuck you things aren't perfect yet' rant, go for it."
'hey, fuck things aren't perfect' seems like not a bad place to start in my critique, especially, when she writes this in the next paragraph of her letter:
"But if you do want to take a look back now and then, and contemplate how America evolved into a country where women could finally claim their rights, you might enjoy the ride even more. It's a great story, and it was all leading up to you."
What I get out of that is that the story is over and that women have claimed their rights. But, if you have a problem with that, you're probably in the "fuck things are perfect the way they are" camp.
Or that she's passing the torch. I mean it's not like she spent the preceeding five paragraphs listing various areas that could definitely use improvement.
At least that's what I got out of reading the entire letter.
Rose, I think maybe your letter was written in a fit of emotion, as an above poster wrote about Collins letter. They are emotions I can understand, yet that I also think really only further some of the problems we encounter as modern feminists. I'm curious, have you read her books? I couldn't really tell from your post....I have read both of them, and they do miss the mark on some points, but on the other hand, it's one of the best efforts by a white woman to comprehensively cover the entire history of American women in an easy to read, accessible way. As a native woman, I can say she definitely did not do a good job of covering our story, but she made an effort. I wish that, like Howard Zinn did at the beginning of people's history, she would have prefaced her books with an acknowledgement that she would not always pick up on things, because of her personal experience and her inability to relate to some groups.
As far as the letter you are commenting on here, in many ways, she is right. I am a young woman, but old enough to know that it is a very young thing to do to keep your mind in the here and now. We really, really don't know what it was like then. Talk to your mothers. When I talk to mine, or my grandmothers, it is clear that I REALLY REALLY do not know what it was like. If I were them, I would get pissed too. I would especially get pissed that we have come no farther in WORKING TOGETHER generationally as feminists. I see it all the time. Feminism does not move forward because we each have an individual experience and an individual agenda. Those are all valid. Some are so important that they absolutely cannot be compromised or set aside. But some, like, age? Please. Admit you don't know what it was like. Don't pretend you don't see women walking around every day, all over the place, most of them scared to speak the word feminist, yet using it's accomplishments to get what they want. And then spending the other half of their time living out old stereotypes. This hurts our movement, and these women need us. When you live in the world of feminism, or the world of activism, or the world of social services, all of which make up my world, you sometimes forget how little the rest of the world lives in your sphere.
I think Collins and these older women have a right to their anger. I actually don't even understand what you are trying to say, the more I read your post. She's saying we're not done, we're saying we're not done. She's just saying it differently. This is the problem of feminism since it's inception. Everyone wanting their voices heard, with their hands clenched in their laps, without reaching across the table. So I guess Collins is guilty of this too.
i agree with you, lindsay. i am torn at the moment between recognizing all of the amazing work young feminists are doing all over the world, and also accepting that there is a huge population of women out there who shun the word and everything that comes along with it. shit, i go to a FEMINIST society group once a week and there are women in there who won't even identify as feminists. i don't want to disparage the amazing work being done (and not to toot my own horn, but the work that i myself have been privileged to be a part of), but i am also not going to pretend that there isn't a pretty large group of young women who aren't calling themselves or living as feminists. the point is, the work that is being done is incredibly necessary, and we need more of it.
btw, when i read Gail's letter last week, it actually was a wake-up call for me (a feminist who is currently getting a master's in gender studies), so imagine what it might say to women who eschew even using the word. just a thought.
I don't know. It seemed to me like Rose was upset that Collins was specifically targeting younger women. I think that's a justified claim. Rose's point was that there are many demographics, not just younger women, who use feminism to their advantage but don't call themselves feminists. It's not just a phenomenon in my generation. It happened in Collins' generation too. It happens in every generation. Singling out young feminists just makes the movement more divisive.
I agree. There are plenty of females who take advantage of everything that feminism has fought for and accomplished and who then not only don't call themselves feminists, they disparage feminists and feminism. They could've done it all on their own, they say. Plus, from the experiences I've had, it seems like younger females are the ones who think feminism is a moot point, not the older feminists. Maybe the older feminists just see that so much has changed for the better. Lots of what they fought for they've seen progress on.
My point is, Rose is clearly and emphatically doing the same. And I know I said the Collins was guilty of that as well. And I am sick of hearing this all the time!! There are smarter ways to go about difference than mud slinging contests. I would also like to reiterate that I think the women who reject feminism or it's achievements NEED us, my point really wasn't to denigrate them.
My point is, Rose is clearly and emphatically doing the same. And I know I said the Collins was guilty of that as well. And I am sick of hearing this all the time!! I would also like to reiterate that I think the women who reject feminism or it's achievements NEED us, my point really wasn't to denigrate them.
My point is, Rose is clearly and emphatically doing the same. And I know I said the Collins was guilty of that as well. And I am sick of hearing this all the time!! I would also like to reiterate that I think the women who reject feminism or it's achievements NEED us, my point really wasn't to denigrate them.
My point is, Rose is clearly and emphatically doing the same. And I know I said the Collins was guilty of that as well. And I am sick of hearing this all the time!! I would also like to reiterate that I think the women who reject feminism or it's achievements NEED us, my point really wasn't to denigrate them.
I didn't need to make my point THAT clearly! Sorry guys! Stupid computer.
I didn't need to make my point THAT clearly! Sorry guys! Stupid computer.
I didn't need to make my point THAT clearly! Sorry guys! Stupid computer.
I didn't need to make my point THAT clearly! Sorry guys! Stupid computer.
Please explain to me how the way Gail Collins talks down to feminists differs from the way Courtney talks down to gender-conscious males in her article, http://www.feministing.com/archives/018796.html.
I found them both to be equally vainglorious and belittling.
That being said, I find Gail's approach far more tactful. At least she didn't dismiss the young feminist as unsustainable and naive.
My apologies for the broken link. The story was posted a few days ago and can be found at the American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=whats_the_alternative_to_tucker_max
What? Look, I'm 36. I don't know if that makes me young or old, but I *was* shocked when I got my first job and the guys there were sexist. I don't think Collins is taking a swipe at anyone by pointing out that women like me exist. The fact that I was able to remain relatively oblivious to sexism knocks *me* out. What a coup my mother's generation pulled off! (And via the tactical application of "Anything boys can do, girls can do better" glitter decals no less!)
Agreed - I'm 34 (in that young-older difficult to define category!)and it seems a shame that all this in-fighting seems to downplay the contribution made by my mother's generation, who basically made it possible for me to live the life I have now. It's by no means perfect, but since I'm in a position to have a full-time job, own my own property, travel on my own, not have to get married if I don't want to, learn about more than cookery or sewing for a living, not be barred from certain public spaces, etc. etc. I'm very grateful. And I know that not EVERY woman will experience that, and life is tough in different ways for each and every one of us, but it doesn't change the fact that in my grandmother's era NONE of the women experienced any of that because there was no compunction for the people in charge to do it - no law said they had to treat people equally, so they didn't!
And I also didn't think Collins was being particularly condescending or having a go at anyone - the whole tenor of the article was one of celebration and telling the next generation what went on in hers and how great it was and how it changed the world as we know it. If you had a WW2 veteran telling you about the war and how it changed our lives today would anyone kick up a stink because they reckoned they were being called soft for never having fought in a war? Of course not! Moving forward is good, but doing it without knowledge of your past dooms you to repeat the same mistakes time and again.
I think there are a lot of things to get angry about in this world, but just getting annoyed for the sake of it doesn't seem like it's much help to anyone - I'd rather be grateful and then move forward instead of trying to pull apart our past.
Self-righteous activism is something I have encountered constantly in my own life and I think it's a tendency we all fight from time to time. I myself get indignant when I see a few people who have so much when many people have so little in this world and it's easy to make a reflexive judgment that they have no conception of their inherent privilege. And I certainly get upset when people wish to patent the ground they've broken and mythologized, while failing to understand that subsequent reforms are always needed, even if they supersede the hard work of another age.
When I was in academia, one was expected to publish once one became a professor. One also was expected to have a thick skin, because once after writing one's brilliant analysis of something, if it was well-discussed within the field, inevitably someone would write a response to it. The intent was not to be a buzz kill, but to improve upon the ideas stated before. The ultimate assumption was that no idea idea was beyond perfection, and that with enough brain power, ideas had tremendous power.
With some activists, however, they fail to understand that not all criticism is destructive and they get their feelings hurt, presuming that subsequent schools of thought don't "get" what they fought for. If they would put their towering egos aside, they might be able to see the real truth.
I think this is something that happens with many areas of activism, and it is somewhat generational. Not necessarily older vs. younger, but first waves vs. later waves. I'm an officer with my local Young Democrats chapter, and last year responded to a call from a woman in a rural precinct who wanted advice reaching out to younger voters in her area... which turned into a lecture about how unappreciative we youngsters were of her 60s political organizing. I've caught myself giving the same type of lecture to people (some of them older than me) who are getting involved in local politics for the first time.
I think part of it is wanting recognition, but part of it is the very real fear that the work you did will be undone unless the next wave steps up. It sounds like Collins is seeing the party we went to Halloween night, but not the get-out-the-vote calls we made the next day. I consider it part of my responsibility as a feminist to understand the work that happened before I was born, but also to move forward into the present and future work.
I think you make an excellent point, Sara. Does the NAACP have as many active contributing members and supporters now as it did in its civil rights heyday? No. Civic engagement on many issues is down.
One thing I rarely see addressed is the organizational legacy of second wave. This is a gross generalization, but that movement, like many, began organically, with CR groups and other gatherings, and an emphasis on women coming together and listening to one another --and then acting on the righteous anger and solidarity that came from sharing their experiences, realizing they were not alone, and that their oppression was systemic, not individual.
There isn't a lot of that face-to-face feminism any more. We have large advocacy groups like NARAL and other institutions, and yes we have these blogs, but it is not the same as, say, the religious right, where they are on the ground in churches and in schools.
I;m not saying this to blame second wavers but there is more to all of this that the whole "ungrateful/unaware young women" thing.
Ugh I'm so tired of having to have this argument over and over.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post, but I felt that the post itself was much more patronizing than Gail Collins' original article. I don't see any benefit to referring to a columnist by her first name in a rather condescending name while criticizing her for talking down to us as young feminists.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post, but I felt that the post itself was much more patronizing than Gail Collins' original article. I don't see any benefit to referring to a columnist by her first name in a rather condescending name while criticizing her for talking down to us as young feminists.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post, but I felt that the post itself was much more patronizing than Gail Collins' original article. I don't see any benefit to referring to a columnist by her first name in a rather condescending name while criticizing her for talking down to us as young feminists.
I haven't read the book yet, but I am kind of sickened by the title. When everything changed?
Oh, DID it?
Segregating job ads by gender was still legal in 1974. Women still make 75 cents to a man's dollar. RIGHT. NOW.
And no, feminism didn't begin in the 60's. (I know I am being simplistic, but that is was is implied in the title of the book.) The last names Brewster, Webster, and Baxter refer to women supporting themselvs as brewers, weavers and bakers. That's from the middle ages--job parity was viewed as a problem even then. In the 1930s in the US, part of the reason the minimum wage was enacted was to give a "man's wage" to everyone, regardless of gender. (OK, it didn't quite work.) It may have been louder in the 60s but it was not by any means new.
One thing old feminist me LOVES about younger feminists is that they don't apologize at the rate we did. They accept that they deserve equal funding for sports, for example.
Young feminists, I love you. Sorry if some of us grey-hairs are cranky.
"For the entire history of recorded civilization, people had ideas about women's limitations, and their proper (domestic) place in the world."
From my understanding this is a falacy. It is historical construction that suited our modern view of gender (this has a special name, but I forgot what it is). Work between men and women evenly divided amongst agrarian societies because all hands were needed to cultivate the crops.