Hello faithful readers! I apologize for the delay of this post as well as for the delay with the weekly link post (which I will try to put up tonight or early tomorrow). As some of you may know, this weekend I moved from Minneapolis to Brooklyn and well, you guys kinda fell to the back burner. Hey! I was sleeping on the couch with my robe as my blanket! I had things to do before I posted!
Anywhoo, here’s the next installment of discussion questions…
- Henry discusses how the stories third-wave feminists tell about the second-wave feminists often reflect the desires of third-wave feminists themselves and use those stories to frame their own movement. How do we (or do we?) tell stories of past feminist movements to justify our potentially different actions? ( ex.: was the second-wave as whitewashed and politically conservative as we sometimes make it out to be?)
- Do we need to disassociate in order to give our aims value?
- As a (albeit amateur) historian, I appreciate Henry’s points of the power of visibility of the past–if young women (or any women for that matter) see ground-breaking women and their achievements, they are more likely to believe they can follow suit. Do you agree? Do you think the ground-breaking running of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination will open more doors for women in higher politics?
- Throughout the book, Henry discusses how embracing contradictions is central to the third-wave movement, and how the concept of “being real” (or “telling the truth”) allows for these things– “As woman I discovered that mine was not a feminism that existed comfortably in the black and white of things… I needed a feminism brave enough to fuck with the greys. And this was not my foremother’s feminism” (158). This is something I truly appreciate about third-wave feminism because it allows for complexities that I’ve dealt with in my personal life that may seem contradictory to the movement–we’re not all perfect, we can’t all follow feminism rulebook by the letter, life throws us curve balls. Anyone else agree? What do you think about the concept of “keeping it real” within feminism? Is “real” a rejection of complexity (bare-bones “to the street” feminism) or an embrace of complexity (factoring in people’s differences?)
” When all of our voices–and all of our various ways of being feminist–can be part of the dialogue, feminism can truly move forward.”