Feminism's Generation Gap
By Stephanie Herman
Originally published in Hatteras,
The PostFeminist Playground's Monthly Mix, and
What's the Point?
Feminism, like genetic attributes and a belief in liberalism, seems to
be skipping a generation. Rose Glickman, who recently published a book
on the perplexing women of Generation X who aren't living up to feminist
ideals of activism, entitled it not "Feminist Daughters," but rather,
"Daughters of Feminists." This simple generational gap in commitment to
feminism should come as no surprise; it's only natural that the Baby
Boomers, who revived feminism, would be at odds with the generation to
follow, just as they struggled against the notions and tendencies of the
Beat generation preceding their own. Forty years ago John Clellon Holmes
characterized that Beat generation of the early 1950s as a myriad of variant faces behind which a
generational line of thinking was finding validation in the repetition
of its expression. "What the hipster is looking for in his 'coolness'...
is, after all, a feeling of somewhereness, not just another diversion.
The young Republican feels that there is a point beyond which change
becomes chaos... Both have had enough of homelessness, valuelessness,
faithlessness." This observation could just as successfully be applied
to the Generation X of today. Baby Boomer feminists had hoped, however,
to breach any generational divide that might threaten the continuation
of their cause. They've been somewhat disappointed. According to a poll
recently conducted by R.H. Brushkin, only 16 percent of college women
"definitely" considered themselves to be feminsits.
Perusing the women's studies section of any bookstore reminds us that
the charter members of feminism's second wave are maturing in age. The
latest volumes published by Cathleen Rountree, Betty Friedan and
Germaine Greer discuss not gender issues of inequality but of aging and
menopause. That feminists as a group are aging is a superfluous
observation without understanding the fact that feminism--the very
institution--is aging as well; a result of the failure of younger women
to pull the mean age of a feminist down from its fast approach of 50 or
to infuse the feminist platform with discussion of the problems
pertaining to this new generation. But this point of contention is one
not limited to the '90s decade. Feminists have wrestled with the problem
of youthful conservatism and a lack of support for radical feminist
ideology as far back as the late 1970s.
In her 1978 essay, "Why Young Women Are More Conservative," Gloria
Steinem struggled to produce some plausible reasons for the apathy of
the young. Many of her arguments were drawn from her own college years,
which she laughingly admits were conservative--a mistake she blames on a
young woman's desire to gain public, i.e., "patriarchal," approval.
While Steinem conceded that women in their late teens and early
20s--generally students--are suspicious of continuing claims of female
oppression, she offered a simple reason for their errors in judgment:
"As students, women are probably treated with more equality than we ever
will be again. For one thing, we're consumers. The school is only too
glad to get the tuitions we pay..."
Were these really Steinem's words? Since when have feminists ever
admitted that as consumers women are treated fairly? It's been widely
reported and believed that any woman's attempt to purchase a car, an
outfit, a hair cut, even her dry cleaning, results not only in the
chauvenistic condescension of salesmen who respect only her husband's or
father's purchasing power, but also in being consistently charged more
than men for the same product or service. Furthermore, feminists
perpetually allege that college women are failed in every way by their
patriarchal learning institutions--citing date and stranger rape on
campus, "phallocentric" curricula and gender-biased teaching methods. At
a feminist conference at City University of New York in 1992, Steinem
herself claimed that male-dominated schools were so bad, she was
recommending an "underground system of education."
Then and today Steinem misses the point. Instead of enjoying a false
sense of security, young women may be embracing conservatism for the
proverbial reason that in the '90s they finally have something to
conserve. Feminists hesitate to admit it and the media is reluctant to
report it, but progress has and is being made in the fight for female
equality.
Gains in the fight for equality are not lost on the members of
Generation X, who grew up in the Information Age. Founder of the MIT
Media Lab and author of Being Digital, Nicholas Negroponte admits a line
of demarcation between informational "haves" and "have-nots." And in the
arena of information access, the youth is occupying an advantaged
position in relation to older generations.
Such data so readily available to young people today shows the
situation for women is not as alarming as feminists would have us
believe. According to a 1994 study performed by the National Women's
Political Caucus, "women and men have won general elections at virtually
identical rates over the last 20 years." The study concluded that the
only reason we don't see more women in government is because they fail
to run for election.
Historically, feminism has been on the vanguard of assuring that women
will have the opportunity to compete in the workplace. The young people
of Generation X, portrayed as a hesitant group of incessant questioners,
have been interested to know: Have these efforts proved successful?
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, women accounted for 60
percent of total labor force growth between 1982 and 1992. By 1983,
women held 40 percent (9.7 million) of high paying managerial and
professional specialty jobs and 47 percent (14.7 million) in 1992. In
fact, women are projected to account for nearly three-fifths of the
labor force entrants between 1990 and 2005 and will comprise 47 percent
of the labor force by the year 2005.
According to the Science & Engineering 1993 Indicators, published by
the National Science Board, the percentage of bachelors degrees earned
in all fields by women was 45.43% in 1975, rising to 54.07% by 1991. The
procurement of masters degrees achieved similar gains, from 44.79% in
1975 to 53.65% in 1991. Encouragingly, women have actually eclipsed men
in their pursuit of an education. In all fields, men earned 508,424
bachelors degrees in 1975 while women earned only 423,239. As of 1991,
however, women had far surpassed the male figure of 508,952 by earning a
total of 599,045. In fact, women have earned more bachelors degrees than
men since 1982. The numbers are similar for masters degrees: 156,895 for
men in 1991, compared to 181,603 for women.
Although women are still under-represented in the fields of science and
engineering, the gap is steadily narrowing. For example, while the
number of men earning bachelors degrees in science and engineering
actually fell from 210,741 in 1975 to 189,328 in 1991, women's degrees
in science and engineering rose from 102,814 in 1975 to 148,347 in 1991.
And in the field of computer science, men's bachelors degree production
increased between 1975 and 1991 by a factor of only 4.38 as compared to
the surge of women's degree production by a factor of 7.86. Such
encouraging information may partly account for the waning response to
feminist rallying cries among the ranks of Generation X.
Members of our generation, both male and female, have been criticized
for far more heinous crimes than simply our disregard for Baby Boomer
liberalism. We've been dubbed the unlucky 13th American generation for
the environmental, economic and political problems we inherited. Further
labels include "yiffies" (young individualistic freedom-minded few) and,
forever in their shadow, "Baby Busters." We've been accused of being
workaholic slaves of materialism, and in the same breath, of being too
lazy; of practicing generational self-pity and, at the same time,
setting our moral and political standards too high, all the while being
relentlessly pictured on magazine covers as straight-faced, albeit
mini-skirted and dreadlocked, malcontents.
In Psychology Today's May/June 1992 article, "A Generation of Whiners,"
five characteristics existing in childhood are said to have contributed
to the apprehension of the Xers' worldview: [1] parents (or lack of them
before 5:00 p.m.); [2] smaller demographic (in the Boomers' shadow); [3]
economic turbulence (70s inflation, 80s recession); [4] TV exposure
(violence); and [5] stress (children's levels have risen steadily since
'67). Can these five factors also explain our female members'
apprehension toward feminism?
Not really. These components are cited as catalysts for the
generation's ennui, our search for identity, our tendency to live with
our parents after college, to travel in groups and avoid early marriage.
The list represents the problems that Generation X faced growing
up--problems that currently haunt us as we make our initial and
tentative adult decisions. Not surprisingly, gender discrimination is
not on that list. Though we grew up wary of our precarious place in a
polluted, violent and economically unstable world, the young girls of
Generation X always felt equal to the boys with whom we grew up.
In fact, ours was the first generation to do so. In Daughters of
Feminists, Rose Glickman noted the same trend among the Generation X
"daughters" she interviewed: "In all the feminist families, fathers no
less than mothers exhorted and encouraged their daughters, in word and
deed, to develop their minds and to strive for and expect professional
achievement." Generation X girls were raised to expect the same things
little boys might grow up expecting: the opportunity to earn a college
degree, the opportunity to pursue a career, in short--the opportunities.
The parents of Generation X women seemed to warn their daughters en
masse that while marriage might or might not be in their futures, even a
married woman should be self reliant. Glickman echoes this sentiment in
her findings, concluding that the young women of this generation, "begin
their journey with eyes on the prize of self-reliance."
In Paula Kamen's 1991 book, Feminist Fatale, she explains, as a
Generation X feminist, why the cause is so misunderstood by her
generation; then envisions its hopeful future if, and when, young women
can make the association and subsequent commitment to feminism. "The
great irony," she complains, "is that although feminism has generally
made a tremendous difference in the perceptions and opportunities in
many of these people's lives, it is something that they almost
universally shun." Echoing Kamen's frustration, feminists in their early
30s, just beyond the reach of Generation X, believe that this next
generation of young women--who generally espouse feminist ideals, if not
the label--just haven't experienced the gender discrimination a formal
introduction to the "real world" will eventually bring.
Assuredly, most women of Generation X do admit a great debt of
gratitude to feminists for earlier victories, but at this point in
America's feminist-influenced history, many believe the law has been
altered sufficiently. Remaining gender discrimination is considered to
result not from a lack of legislation but to the lingering chauvenistic
attitudes of a small percentage of men and women. If the law has had no
effect until now on the attitudes of these individuals, further marches
and protests and legalised protectionism will produce no additional
effect. As potential victims of gender discrimination, young women tend
to hold the belief that the few unenlightened individuals they may
encounter should be confronted on a personal, not political, level.
Where feminist intimidation has failed, a personal introduction to a
truly hard-working, capable female may be the only solution to changing
biased attitudes.
An illustration of this fact was recently highlighted on an episode of
the Oprah Winfrey show. A young white man, who considered blacks an
inferior race, explained that the more the world tried to force him to
change his attitude--the more NAACP protests and politically correct
supplications he witnessed on television--the more angry and prejudiced
he became. His bigotry did not end until he actually had the opportunity
to get to know a young black man. The two became close friends and
though it took more time than a sound-byte could provide, a positive,
personal experience melted away what years of social conditioning and
intimidation could not.
Because the women of this generation have been raised with an innate
sense of equality, the reverse discrimination of feminism exists as one
reason many of them fail to allign with the movement. The double
standard regarding women's use of male slurs and put-downs is repugnant
not for the jibes allowed women, but for the simultaneous censorship
forced upon men. In a recent radio commercial, while jokingly referring
to her son and husband, a female voice claimed that she was now raising
two boys. Her joke is perfectly acceptable in American society because
no political censorship regarding the foibles of men (not to mention
foibles of the government, politicians or public figures) currently
exists. But let a commercial suggest that a woman is valued for her sexy
appearance, is behaving in a childish or immature manner, or is
dependent, in any way, on another person, and the National Oragnization
for Women will immediately boycott the advertised product. Women of any
generation concerned with gender equity would condemn this flagrant use
of a double standard.
What residual discrimination does exist in our vigorously "sensitized"
and censored society, women admittedly have a hard time detecting. Kamen
concedes that most of the women she interviewed "expressed confusion and
helplessness at detecting sexism, which they suspect as a subtle
undercurrent in both professional and personal relationships." It is
peripheral to suggest that the crisis of sexism may not be living up to
its representation; more importantly, it is this charge of "subtle"
sexism that appears somewhat paranoiac and often alienates young women
who sense that sexism isn't always the reason the woman isn't picked for
the job.
One of the most active areas of involvement for feminists today
involves the problem of domestic violence and, more specifically,
violence against women. While the members of Generation X are extremely
sensitive to the problems of violence present in our society, some are
abandoning feminist solutions to these problems on a purely ideological
basis.
Betsy Hart, reporting in The Women's Quarterly, explains that last
year's "Violence Against Women Act," included in the president's crime
bill, was authored in response to inaccurate figures put forth by the
Battered Women's Justice Project and the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence. "But the truth is," states Hart, "the number of
sexual assaults actually fell last year from the year before--by as much
as 20%, according to the latest National Crime Victimization Survey
issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics." Hart is not dismissing the
problem of violence against women, but makes the point that the current
crisis "will not be addressed by the Violence Against Women Act," citing
that most of the 1.5 billion dollars earmarked for women's protection
will be "allocated to advocacy groups that generate distorted and
hysterical statistics rather than to efforts that might really help
women--and all crime victims--such as increasing police forces, building
prisons, and jailing repeat offenders."
This is not the first accusation made against feminist advocacy groups
regarding their practice of doctoring the books to make a problem appear
worse than it is. In Christina Hoff-Sommers' Who Stole Feminism?, raw
data is presented that disproves many erroneous albeit widely-reported
feminist statistics. For example, Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf have
both published figures suggesting that roughly 150,000 women and girls
die of anorexia per year; the actual figures, according to the National
Center for Health Statistics, are on average less than 100 per year.
Similar claims, including that battery of pregnant women accounts for
the leading cause of birth defects in the U.S., that levels of domestic
abuse rise by 40 percent on Super Bowl Sunday, and that annual levels of
assault on women hover between 500,000 and 6 million, have since been
proven to be distorted and inaccurate. Hoff-Sommers contends that while
the motivation of those she calls "gender feminists" to cure the ills
affecting women is certainly noble, their willing and conscious
dissemination of false statistics steals credibility from the fair
fights being waged everyday by and on behalf of women.
Though a few final miles may remain on the path to gender equality,
including the all-important narrowing of the gap between male and female
compensation for equal work, the cause of feminism has long since
eclipsed its original journey of basic equality. Because the arena of
discrimination offers fewer challenges, current feminist motivations
involve a conglomeration of personal rather than political convictions
regarding female sexuality, identity and expression. Kamen asserts that
this cultural component of feminism, "suggests... feminism would still
be relevant even if discrimination against women halted." Many would
argue that this halt has virtually been achieved, but limiting ourselves
to Kamen's hypothetical future: why would any young woman want to devote
her enthusiasm and energy to a battle already won? Post-discrimination
feminism (to many, an oxymoron) would resemble a religion more than a
political movement. Furthermore, a platform consisting only of defining
female identity, striving for feminine expression and practicing goddess
worship is no foundation for the political activism feminists
intrinsically pursue.
In fact, Generation X is increasingly wary of feminism's refusal to
give up the ghost, recognizing that while most of women's battles have
been won, habitual feminists are angry as ever. On the "Womens'
Homepage" of the Internet's World Wide Web is a list of resources for
feminists, inauspiciously including "Marketing Angry Women"--a
formidable job, to be sure, but nonetheless indicative of the prevailing
feminist attitude. The fact that feminists continue to perpetuate
unnecessary wars causes skepticism in the minds of younger women who are
interested not only in fighting the right battles, but in affecting
resolution.
Ostensibly, resolution is elusive in the feminist's world. In her 1990
book, The Worst Years of Our Lives, feminist Barbara Ehrenreich embraces
a never-ending story: "The original idea of feminism as I first
encountered it, in about 1969, was twofold: that nothing short of
equality will do and that in a society marred by injustice and cruelty,
equality will never be good enough." This revelation occured to
Ehrenreich 21 years before publishing her book; in that time, nothing
for her has changed.
Is it, after all, in a career feminist's best interest to admit that
any progress has been made? In 1964, as feminism's second wave was
igniting, the above-mentioned biographer of the Beat generation, John
Clellon Holmes, would write that no group defined as "outcast"--what
today we would label as "victim"--ever desires to give up that title.
His words illustrate a crucial and controversial misunderstanding in
today's debate over welfare, affirmative action and feminism: "For the
outcast instinctively knows that when he is accepted with such a show of
tolerance it is his very outcastness that is his meal ticket, and so he
emphasizes it..." Are feminists refusing to acknowledge the current
reality of gender equity, "emphasizing" instead their own hated label of
"outcast?"
In 1978, when women enrolling in college outnumbered their male
counterparts for the first time, unimpressed feminists couldn't refrain
from "emphasizing." Though many men and women concerned for gender
equality celebrated in the light of this progress, feminist attitudes
remained bitter. Gloria Steinem reduced the victory to women's pathetic
attempts to participate in a man's world. "This hope of excelling at the
existing game is probably reinforced by the greater cultural pressure on
females to be "good girls" and observe somebody else's rules." Steinem
had transcended the idea of an "equal playing field," now demanding a
brand new playing field wherein women would be dominant: "One day, an
army of gray-haired women may quietly take over the earth."
The young women of Generation X are not interested in taking over the
earth, as twentysomethings or in their dotage, and a perpetually angry
outlook on the world is no longer considered constructive. Instead these
young women and their male counterparts are searching for ways to
incorporate man & woman; Jew & Christian; Muslim & Hindu; black & white
into a cooperative, peaceful world. To attract our interest, feminist
leaders will have do more than simply mouth angry rhetoric and hurl
false accusations. They will have to redefine the problems faced by
young women today (problems faced by young men, as well) and offer hope
and resolution--not in the form of more social welfare and quotas, but
in lessons of personal responsibility and cooperation between the sexes.