This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/21/pop-up-book-club-feminine-mystique-day-two
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Pop-up book club: The Feminine Mystique – day two | Pop-up book club: The Feminine Mystique – day two |
| (7 months later) | |
| The Guardian's pop-up book club discussion of The Feminine Mystique starts Thursday at 3pm and will last for half an hour. | The Guardian's pop-up book club discussion of The Feminine Mystique starts Thursday at 3pm and will last for half an hour. |
| For our second chat, we'll be focusing on the second 100 pages. | For our second chat, we'll be focusing on the second 100 pages. |
| Questions to consider: | Questions to consider: |
| Today's questions are mainly inspired by chapters six to nine. I didn't spend a lot of time on Freud, as I think, psychologically, we have all moved on from there. | Today's questions are mainly inspired by chapters six to nine. I didn't spend a lot of time on Freud, as I think, psychologically, we have all moved on from there. |
| 1. Friedan writes venomously against Margaret Mead. Why do women's disagreements over the female role frequently become hostile and personal? | 1. Friedan writes venomously against Margaret Mead. Why do women's disagreements over the female role frequently become hostile and personal? |
| 2. "If they were spinsters, if they had not had babies, they were forbidden by the mystique to speak as women." Does some of this hold true today? | 2. "If they were spinsters, if they had not had babies, they were forbidden by the mystique to speak as women." Does some of this hold true today? |
| 3. Homemakers were a desirable demographic because they spent money on products for the home. As more women work, how has spending changed? | 3. Homemakers were a desirable demographic because they spent money on products for the home. As more women work, how has spending changed? |
| Join us! | Join us! |
| Bookmark this page, then visit us at 3pm ET to add your thoughts to our discussion. To participate, use #newmystique on Twitter or add your thoughts in the comments below. | Bookmark this page, then visit us at 3pm ET to add your thoughts to our discussion. To participate, use #newmystique on Twitter or add your thoughts in the comments below. |
| What we learned from the second 100 pages: | What we learned from the second 100 pages: |
| Emma Keller: | Emma Keller: |
| I found the chapter on Margaret Mead extremely unsettling. It made me think of the many times women attack each other when they disagree on feminist choices or points of view. Often these professional attacks rapidly become personal. I began to wonder if the emptiness Friedan had described earlier in women is in fact loneliness at not feeling understood by other women. | I found the chapter on Margaret Mead extremely unsettling. It made me think of the many times women attack each other when they disagree on feminist choices or points of view. Often these professional attacks rapidly become personal. I began to wonder if the emptiness Friedan had described earlier in women is in fact loneliness at not feeling understood by other women. |
| I'd argue that this aspect of female life has become worse and more virulent in the age of the internet, when isolation and attacks have arguably increased. Where's the respect? The kindness? The sympathy? Why so much anger? If this is a sisterhood, it seems fraught with sibling rivalry. | I'd argue that this aspect of female life has become worse and more virulent in the age of the internet, when isolation and attacks have arguably increased. Where's the respect? The kindness? The sympathy? Why so much anger? If this is a sisterhood, it seems fraught with sibling rivalry. |
| This brings me on to my next thought, which relates to choices. Friedan describes a mindset where unmarried woman, or women who aren't mothers, are somehow not thought of as real, or complete, women. I think this still exists. (See Ann Romney's speech at the 2012 Republican national convention. See also Jenny Allen's parody in the New Yorker.) | This brings me on to my next thought, which relates to choices. Friedan describes a mindset where unmarried woman, or women who aren't mothers, are somehow not thought of as real, or complete, women. I think this still exists. (See Ann Romney's speech at the 2012 Republican national convention. See also Jenny Allen's parody in the New Yorker.) |
| On Wednesday, I wrote about the confidence that comes from having more choice. Today, I'd add that that in order for choice to be real it has to be universally accepted. I'm not sure we're there yet. | On Wednesday, I wrote about the confidence that comes from having more choice. Today, I'd add that that in order for choice to be real it has to be universally accepted. I'm not sure we're there yet. |
| Heidi Moore: | Heidi Moore: |
| That is such a great point, Emma. I think Friedan was motivated by principle, but it's also not just a sisterhood problem. Heated disagreements between men and women, too, are often resolved viciously against the woman. Remember when Hillary Clinton ran for president? And the hateful things that were said about her by male politicians as well as female? I remember most vividly one incident in which a female supporter asked John McCain: "How do we beat the bitch?" McCain, instead of repudiating her, laughed and replied: "That's an excellent question." This great piece from the Seattle Times revisits all the high points, including one Republican operative calling Hillary "a vaginal-American." | That is such a great point, Emma. I think Friedan was motivated by principle, but it's also not just a sisterhood problem. Heated disagreements between men and women, too, are often resolved viciously against the woman. Remember when Hillary Clinton ran for president? And the hateful things that were said about her by male politicians as well as female? I remember most vividly one incident in which a female supporter asked John McCain: "How do we beat the bitch?" McCain, instead of repudiating her, laughed and replied: "That's an excellent question." This great piece from the Seattle Times revisits all the high points, including one Republican operative calling Hillary "a vaginal-American." |
| I have no particularly interest in politics, and certainly no loyalties, but that was a slap in the face, a realization that no woman could be so educated or accomplished as to deflect hateful, ugly gender-based attacks. That's what awakened my long-dormant feminism: that, as a woman, you will get a different, meaner answer every time you dare to speak from a prominent platform. I wondered at the time, cynically, if this was the fate of every woman who dared to achieve any prominence. I worried that younger women like me who had not faced this open sexism had only gotten away for a time, that the hibernation from open disrespect of their accomplishments was only possible as long as you didn't compete – as long as you don't achieve anything desirable, including your voice, your platform, or your position. | I have no particularly interest in politics, and certainly no loyalties, but that was a slap in the face, a realization that no woman could be so educated or accomplished as to deflect hateful, ugly gender-based attacks. That's what awakened my long-dormant feminism: that, as a woman, you will get a different, meaner answer every time you dare to speak from a prominent platform. I wondered at the time, cynically, if this was the fate of every woman who dared to achieve any prominence. I worried that younger women like me who had not faced this open sexism had only gotten away for a time, that the hibernation from open disrespect of their accomplishments was only possible as long as you didn't compete – as long as you don't achieve anything desirable, including your voice, your platform, or your position. |
| This, perhaps, was why so many women shrink, both intellectually and physically, and take refuge in "hard work" and "luck" as an explanation of their success: God forbid they look as if they really want something and went after it. I myself do not believe in success as a zero-sum game, and I don't believe gender should be related to it anyway – but let's face it, that seems like a minority view. | This, perhaps, was why so many women shrink, both intellectually and physically, and take refuge in "hard work" and "luck" as an explanation of their success: God forbid they look as if they really want something and went after it. I myself do not believe in success as a zero-sum game, and I don't believe gender should be related to it anyway – but let's face it, that seems like a minority view. |
| As we see with Friedan, the rules of intellectual combat change according to the speaker's gender. I've seen it myself online or on Twitter, where you see women get hideously attacked the minute they voice either a fact or an opinion on a matter that may be controversial. Just recently, there was Mother Jones' Clara Jeffrey on gun control, left gasping as Twitter trolls threatened to harm her child, or the Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Sara Ganim, who has had hateful trolls that nearly drove her off Twitter for her direct, factual reporting on the Joe Paterno scandal. | As we see with Friedan, the rules of intellectual combat change according to the speaker's gender. I've seen it myself online or on Twitter, where you see women get hideously attacked the minute they voice either a fact or an opinion on a matter that may be controversial. Just recently, there was Mother Jones' Clara Jeffrey on gun control, left gasping as Twitter trolls threatened to harm her child, or the Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Sara Ganim, who has had hateful trolls that nearly drove her off Twitter for her direct, factual reporting on the Joe Paterno scandal. |
| I see it myself in the world of economics and finance, embedded deep in the rhetoric. Disagreement is common and expected in this world – it is a marketplace of ideas – so it's instructive to look at its terms. Male writers are simply disagreed with, while the few prominent and well-respected female writers, when they step into controversy, when it gets down to it, are often dismissed as "airheads" or "bimbos" or less printable things. | I see it myself in the world of economics and finance, embedded deep in the rhetoric. Disagreement is common and expected in this world – it is a marketplace of ideas – so it's instructive to look at its terms. Male writers are simply disagreed with, while the few prominent and well-respected female writers, when they step into controversy, when it gets down to it, are often dismissed as "airheads" or "bimbos" or less printable things. |
| It's remarkable to parse the objections: when a man leaves an important point out of his column, he is sure to have forgotten it, while when a woman does, the reasoning is more often than not that she simply did not now the fact at all, that her research or her intelligence were deficient. The objection to a woman who takes a stand on a controversial position is rarely "I disagree with her"; it's always a few steps further, a kind of rage, a flailing implication of "who let her in here?" The internet has a rage problem with women, this we know. | It's remarkable to parse the objections: when a man leaves an important point out of his column, he is sure to have forgotten it, while when a woman does, the reasoning is more often than not that she simply did not now the fact at all, that her research or her intelligence were deficient. The objection to a woman who takes a stand on a controversial position is rarely "I disagree with her"; it's always a few steps further, a kind of rage, a flailing implication of "who let her in here?" The internet has a rage problem with women, this we know. |
| The issue, of course, is not consensus. The motive for this bullying, whether from men or women, is usually weakness: their hope is that by bullying you and eliminating your voice, they eliminate having to actually defend their points or justify their own (usually tenuous) claim to participating in the conversation. Women do it too – as we see with Friedan and Meade – and, like men, they are harder on their own sex. I wish more women recognized this tactic as the manipulation that it is, and that it can and should be faced down. | The issue, of course, is not consensus. The motive for this bullying, whether from men or women, is usually weakness: their hope is that by bullying you and eliminating your voice, they eliminate having to actually defend their points or justify their own (usually tenuous) claim to participating in the conversation. Women do it too – as we see with Friedan and Meade – and, like men, they are harder on their own sex. I wish more women recognized this tactic as the manipulation that it is, and that it can and should be faced down. |
| And honestly, I should say that I've seen myself, and have seen towards other women, more voices of support. My online and Twitter experience is primarily a good one, full of humor and useful debate. But when the toxics come, they suck up all the air and if you are a woman in particular, you will need a Hazmat suit. | And honestly, I should say that I've seen myself, and have seen towards other women, more voices of support. My online and Twitter experience is primarily a good one, full of humor and useful debate. But when the toxics come, they suck up all the air and if you are a woman in particular, you will need a Hazmat suit. |
| Don't forget that Friedan herself was attacked by later feminists including Bell Hooks. | Don't forget that Friedan herself was attacked by later feminists including Bell Hooks. |
| Katie Rogers | Katie Rogers |
| I'm going to take on question one, Emma. I think Margaret Mead's take on femininity – the power we have through our sex, of just being women – was definitely too limited for Friedan, enough to frame Mead's writing for an entire chapter and then essentially ask, "still, that's all there is?" On one level, I don't think Mead's theory on the power of femininity isn't altogether incorrect – there's something to be said for acknowledging what's naturally different and powerful and distinct about women – but glorifying our reproductive power has not be enough to push any boundaries and change any ideas about what women could or should be doing in a world beyond their immediate context. | I'm going to take on question one, Emma. I think Margaret Mead's take on femininity – the power we have through our sex, of just being women – was definitely too limited for Friedan, enough to frame Mead's writing for an entire chapter and then essentially ask, "still, that's all there is?" On one level, I don't think Mead's theory on the power of femininity isn't altogether incorrect – there's something to be said for acknowledging what's naturally different and powerful and distinct about women – but glorifying our reproductive power has not be enough to push any boundaries and change any ideas about what women could or should be doing in a world beyond their immediate context. |
| It's why I find ideas like Sarah Palin's "mama grizzly" mantra to be so pandering – it's fine to mobilize women around motherhood and, I guess, the fierceness of femininity, but it excludes an entire set of women who can't identify, not to mention the possibility to fight for anything beyond the construct of family. | It's why I find ideas like Sarah Palin's "mama grizzly" mantra to be so pandering – it's fine to mobilize women around motherhood and, I guess, the fierceness of femininity, but it excludes an entire set of women who can't identify, not to mention the possibility to fight for anything beyond the construct of family. |
| I think this past election year really brought out a lot of these disagreements about what it meant to be a woman, and what it was that women should want. What kind of woman were you if you supported Sandra Fluke? And what kind of woman were you if you came out in support of Todd Akin? | I think this past election year really brought out a lot of these disagreements about what it meant to be a woman, and what it was that women should want. What kind of woman were you if you supported Sandra Fluke? And what kind of woman were you if you came out in support of Todd Akin? |
| I think 2012 told us that, for women, freedom from pushing into the places that were uncomfortable taboo still continues to exist alongside another freedom that some women find when they draw the boundaries around themselves a little tighter. | I think 2012 told us that, for women, freedom from pushing into the places that were uncomfortable taboo still continues to exist alongside another freedom that some women find when they draw the boundaries around themselves a little tighter. |
| I think disagreements become so hostile and personal because women are conditioned to believe that there's a cap on what we can achieve, a finite number of things we can do. We are taught from an early age to compete for a small number of everything: men, jobs, clothes, promotions, healthy and good children, fit bodies … orgasms. It's no surprise that our discussions about who we are and what we can achieve can end brutally. | I think disagreements become so hostile and personal because women are conditioned to believe that there's a cap on what we can achieve, a finite number of things we can do. We are taught from an early age to compete for a small number of everything: men, jobs, clothes, promotions, healthy and good children, fit bodies … orgasms. It's no surprise that our discussions about who we are and what we can achieve can end brutally. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version