even though no one has started discussion from my questions posted yesterday, i’m gonna keep on truckin’ and posting more opportunities for debate. you’ll all jump on sometime, won’t ya?
- One of the biggest differences I see between second and third wave feminism is, obviously, the political environment that shape the movements. During the late 60s/early 70s a political vaccuum appeared with the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and overall political upheaval, paving the way for the possibility of greater social change and with it a visible movement. Currently we do not have a visible movement in the sense that the media regularly covers our actions, which leads into the “feminism is dead” stories. Do we need visibility for legitimacy?
- Furthermore, Henry makes the statement that “unlike second wave, the third wave does not move beyond these individual assertions of identity to a larger, collective political identity” (44) Do you agree? Do third-wave feminists fail to break free from individual concerns and do not culminate into a group aiming for political change? Do we need to all come together under one (or a few) political umbrellas and work together or do we stay content in multiple small grass-roots (often invisible) movements?
- What social issues are prevalent for third-wavers that weren’t prevalent for second-wavers? How does (or even does?) this change our goals?
- Henry describes second-wave feminism as “rules feminism” (i.e. to be a feminist you are this, this, this, not this) and third-wave feminists often reject this doctrine of rules of what a feminist should be. Is third-wave feminist’s rejection of these “rules” lazyness to learn, a knee-jerk reaction to reject your elders (especially if it is from the matraphor of waves of feminism), or a need to break from oppressive (or incorrect) ideology?