Re-Presenting Feminisms Past, Present, and Future

Re-presenting Feminisms: Past, Present, and Future
Author(s): Catherine Harnois

Source: NWSA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring, 2008), pp. 120-145
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071255
Accessed: 12-12-2015 18:12 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to NWSA Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:12:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Feminisms:Past,Present,and Future
Re-presenting
CATHERINE HARNOIS
In this articleI investigatewhat are thoughtto be generationaldiffer-

ences withincontemporary Americanfeminism.I identifythreedomi-
nantapproachesto understanding "thirdwave" feminism:cohort-based,
age-based, and theory-based, and then analyzeempiricaldata to discern
the extentof difference withinand across "waves" ofAmericanfemi-
nism,usingeach of theseapproaches.Drawingfroma combinationof
qualitative and quantitativedata, I argue that thirdwave feminism
mightbe betterunderstoodas an identity, ratherthana distincttheoreti-
cal perspective,age group,or cohort.My findingssuggestthatfeminists
of all ages share many importantaspects of theirgenderand political
ideologies.Moreover,my analysis of "thirdwave" feministtextsand
those"secondwave" textsthatdirectlyspeak togenerationaldifferences
reveals that,in many cases, feministscholarshipitselfreproducesthe
verydifferences it aims to understand.To theextentthatfeministschol-
arshiphas failedto questionadequatelydominantportrayalsof "other"
feministgenerations,and has failedto recognizethediversityofpeople
and perspectiveswithinall feministgenerations,feministscholarship
has, in effect,
reifieddistinct,staticwaves offeminism.
Keywords:thirdwave /generations
/identity
Introduction1
"
Despitetherecentpublicationofnumerous thirdwave" feminist anthol-
ogies (e.g.,To Be Real, Third Wave Agenda, Listen Up! Voicesfromthe
Next FeministGeneration,Colonize This! and The Fire this Time) and
a handfulofarticlesthattake a morerepresentative approachto analyz-
inggenerational differences(e.g.,Huddy,Neely, and LaFay2000; Peltola,
Milkie, and Presser2004; Schnittker, Freese,and Powell 2004), there
remainsa pressingneed formoresystematicanalysesoftherelationship
between"second-wave" and "thirdwave" feminisms. Indeed,a gooddeal
of confusionstill remainsconcerningwhat is actuallymeantby second
waveandparticularly thirdwavefeminism. Usinga combinationofsocio-
logicaland feministresearchtools,I problematizethe notionofdistinct
"waves" of Americanfeminism.I identifythreedominantapproaches
to understanding "thirdwave" feminism - cohort-based, age-based,and
-
theory-basedand thenanalyze empiricaldata to discernthe extentof
difference withinand acrossthesewaves.Drawingfroma combinationof
qualitativeand quantitativedata,I arguethatthirdwave feminismmight
©2008 NWSA Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1 (Spring)
Re-presenting Feminisms 121
be betterunderstoodas an identity, ratherthanas a distincttheoretical

agegroup,orcohort.My findings
perspective, suggestthatfeministsofall
agessharemanyimportant aspectsoftheirgenderandpoliticalideologies.
Moreover, myanalysisofthirdwavefeminist textsandthosesecondwave
textsthatdirectlyspeakto generational differences
revealsthat,in many
cases,feministscholarshipitself(re(producestheverydifferencesit aims
to understand.
Background
By most accounts,the termthirdwave feminism(as understoodtoday)
was coinedby Rebecca Walker,daughterof Alice Walker,cofounderof
theThirdWaveFoundationand editorofthethirdwave anthology, To be
Real.1In practice,"thirdwave feminism/t" is used in at leastthreeways:
to referto an age group,a cohort,and a theoreticalperspective.3 In the
case ofthefirst,thetermis used as a synonym for"youngfeminists." The
ThirdWave Foundation,forexample,describesitselfas an organization
workingto supportwomenaged 15 to 30; and Sexingthe Political,"an
onlinejournalofthirdwave feminists on sexuality"requiresits contribu-
torsto be "20- or 30-something feminists"(withthe exceptionof those
contributing to the"BabyBoomercolumn").In thecase ofthesecond,the
termis generallyused to describea generationalcohortofself-identified
feministswho were broughtup in the 1970s (and some would include
thoserearedin the1980s),andwho,consequently, developedpoliticalcon-
sciousnessduringorsubsequentto theantifeminist backlashofthe 1980s
(Baumgardner and Richards2000; Heywood and Drake 1997;Rasmusson
2003). Ratherthanrelyingon a birth-year-based cohort,Aikau,Erikson,
andPierce(2005)suggestthatfeminist generations mightbe betterunder-
stoodin termsofgraduate-school cohorts."[T]hosewho enteredgraduate
schoolin thelate 1960'sand 1970's,"theysuggest,represent the "second
generation,-"those who entered in the 1980s are said to representthe
"2.5 generation;"and thosewho began in the 1990s represent the "third
generation."4
Those who definethirdwave feminismin termsof a theoreticalper-
spectiveroutinelypointto the crucialinfluenceof postmodernism and
multiracialfeministtheory on the development of third wave feminism
(Heywoodand Drake 1997; Mann and Huffman2005). In addition,third
wave feministsfrequently definethe "thirdwave" by contrasting it to
"second wave" feminism- the feminism associated with those women
who were active in the AmericanWomen's Movementof the 1960s
and 1970s (Labatonand Martin2004, xxv). Rasmusson(2004, 429), for
example,definesthirdwave feminismby distinguishing it fromsecond
wave feminism,arguingthat"a centraltenetofthirdwave feminismis
122 Catherine Harnois
to includewomenwho have previouslybeen excludedfromsocial move-

ments[readsecondwave feminism]due to race,class, and sexual orien-
tationprejudice."This distinctionbetweena perceivedwhitewashed,
privilegedsecond wave feminismand a more diverse,multicultural,
postmodernthirdwave feminismis amongthe mostpopularthemesof
thirdwave feministliterature.
Despite the popularityof thirdwave feminismand the "thirdwave"
label,thewave metaphormoregenerallyhas comeunderincreasingcriti-
cismbyfeminists who feelthatit inaccurately represents thehistoryand
presentoftheAmericanwomen'smovement.Threecriticismsstandout.5
First,as Springer(2002) and Morgan(2003) have argued,by focusingour
attentionon large-scalepublicactivism,thewave metaphorcontributes
to theerasureoftherichhistoryofAmericanwomen'sstruggle forequal-
ity.Poor women and women of color, whose goals and strategiesoften
differfromthoseofmiddle-andupper-classwhitefeminists, remainmar-
ginalized in wave rhetoric, where attention is focused on white women's
suffrage in the late nineteenth century and white women's rightto equal
opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s. As Springer(2002) says,"the more
we learnaboutwomenofcolor'sfeministactivism,the less tenablethe
wave analogybecomes"and that"theidea ofa firstwave beginning with
suffrage excludes the fact thatBlack women resisted genderedoppression
duringtheante-bellum period"(1062).Bailey(1997),Orr(1997),andHenry
(2003) further arguethat,by continuallydrawingwhatare thoughtto be
very clear distinctions betweensecond wave feminismand thirdwave
feminism, continuity between the threewaves ofAmericanfeminismis
forgotten and the diversity offeminist ideologyandactivismwithinthese
is as of
categories lost, popularimages 1970sbra-burning feministscome
to represent whatwouldbe betterunderstood as a movementwitha range
ofideologies,strategies, and participants.
A thirdproblemwiththewave metaphor, or perhapsmoreaccurately,
withthewayit is used,is thatwaverhetoric doesnotsufficiently allowfor
thegrowth, development, and revisionsof feminist theories and theorists.
In thirdwaverhetoric, secondwavefeminism is typically depictedas some-
thingstatic, as if the multiracial feminist critique ofwhite bourgeoisfemi-
nism, the rise of the
postmodernism, development of new technologies,
a changingglobal politicalenvironment, and the institutionalization of
Women'sStudiesleftthesecondwavecompletely unaffected. In comparing
thirdwavefeminism tosecondwavefeminism, thirdwavefeminists gener-
ally draw on those second wave works publishedin the 1960sand 1970s,
givinginsufficient attentionto the arguablybetterdevelopedand more
inclusivesecondwave feminismofthe 1990sand twenty-first century.
The thirdwave metaphorthen,is a site ofbothambiguityand contro-
versy.Whilesome mightarguethatthelack ofa cleardefinition ofthird
wave feminismfitscomfortably witha postmodern thirdwave feminism,
which embracescontradictionand plurality,I suggesthere,following

Kinser(2004),thatthe continueduse of the wave metaphor,combined
with a the lack of consensusconcerningthe actual meaningof third
wave and secondwave feminism,contributes to misunderstandings and
tensionamongfeministsofall ages and theoreticalperspectives.I begin
thispaperbybroadlysketchingpreviousresearchon feministwaves and
generations.Whilethisresearchhas emergedfroma numberofdifferent
sources,includinga numberofacademicdisciplinesand sourcesoutside
oftheacademyas well,forease ofpresentation,I dividethisresearchinto
two categories:quantitativefeministresearchand qualitativefeminist
analyses.
Quantitativeand QualitativeFeministAnalyses
Recentquantitativesocial scienceresearchthataddresseswaves offemi-
nism has, forthe most part,done so by investigating the relationship
betweenage (or in some cases cohort) and feminist identification (e.g.,
Huddy,Neely,and LaFay2000; Peltola,Milkie,and Presser2004; Schnitt-
ker,Freese,andPowell2003;Whittier1995).Forourpurposes,perhapsthe
mostimportantfindingto emergefromthisresearchis thatthe propor-
tionofAmericanwomenwho identify as feministhas remainedlargely
unchangedoverthepastseveral decades (Huddy,Neely,and LaFay2000).
Thoughsome studies(e.g.,Peltola,Milkie,and Presser2004; Schnittker,
Freese,and Powell 2003) suggestthat,when "controlling forbackground
characteristics," age or generation does affect the likelihood that an
individualwill as
identify feminist, these studies are largely limited by
researchdesignsthatassume the effectofbackgroundcharacteristics on
women'sfeminismis identicalforwomen of different cohortsand for
womenofdifferent class,racial,and ethnic groups(Harnois2005b).
Whilethisline ofresearchmayindeedbe helpfulforthoseinterested
in predictingfeministself-identification, I want to suggesthere that
debates concerningwaves of Americanfeminismwould benefitmore
fromdescriptive statisticalanalysesratherthanpredictivemodels.While
predictivemodels seekto teaseoutor"controlfor"theeffects ofa number
ofdifferentsociodemographic factors If
(e.g., we controlfor race,class,sex,
and maritalstatus,how does age affectfeministidentity?), descriptive
analysesmakefewercause-effect assumptionsand insteadaim to giveus
a pictureofwhata particulargroupslooks like (e.g.,Whatpercentageof
womenbornbetween1945and 1969identify as feminist?Whatpercentage
ofthesewomenidentify as nonwhite?Whatpercentageofwomenborn
between1970 and 1981 identifyas feminist?Whatpercentageof these
womenidentify as nonwhite?).I presentsuch descriptiveanalyseslater
in thisarticle.
In contrastto quantitativesocial researchon feminism,genderand

women's studiesscholarswho have recentlyaddressedfeministwaves
havereliedprimarily on textualanalysisofthirdwave (andin some cases
"postfeminist") writing.Thoughtheoretically muchmorenuancedwhen
comparedto quantitativesociologicalstudies of feministgenerations,
previousgenderand women's studiesresearchhas been limitedto the
extentthatit has reliedon a smallnumberoftexts(particularly, Findlen's
ListenUp!, Walker'sTo Be Real, Baumgardner and Richard'sManifesta!,
and Heywoodand Drake's ThirdWaveAgenda) to representthirdwave
feminism(see,forexample,Drake 1997andBailey1997).Whilethelarger
volumeofliterature associatedwithsecondwave feminismmightallow
formore diverserepresentations of the second wave in thirdwave cri-
tiques,in practiceit seldomdoes. Rather,representations ofsecondwave
feminism generally consistofa fewwhite,upper-middle-class, prudishyet
bra-burning, man-hating, caricature-likewomen(Bailey1997; Cox et al.
1997;Davis 1995,Orr1996;PollittandBaumgardner 2003; Schriefer 2004;
Siegel 1997a).Clearlythereis moreto bothof these waves offeminisms
thantheserepresentations wouldhave us believe.6
Previousgenderand women'sstudiesresearchon feministwaves has
also been limitedto the extentthatit has failedto questionsufficiently
whathas becomemedia'sprimemessageaboutfeminism - namely,that
it is dead (see, forexample,Time magazine'sinfamouscoverstoryon
June29, 1998).Whenaddressingtheissue offeministgenerations, many
feminist scholarshavestartedfromeithertheassumptionthat(a) younger
womentodayare relativelyless likelyto identify as feminists(e.g.,Dent
1995;Karlyn2003; Walker or
1995), (b) the feminism associatedwiththe
is
youngergeneration underdeveloped theoretically.From the latterper-
spective,it seems that the rigorousacademic and activistfeministworkof
the 1970shas been replacedbya materialistic and uncritical,ahistorical,
individualisticwriting callingitself(inappropriately)feminism (e.g.,Davis
1995;Guy-Sheftall 2002; Karlyn2003; Orr 1997;Pollitt and Baumgardner
2003,313).I argueherethatbothoftheseassumptionsmustbe challenged.
As mentionedpreviously, the quantitativeresearchon feminismin the
UnitedStateshas foundthatwomenofall generationscontinuebothto
advocatefeministideals and to identify as feminists.
In this article,I deliberatelydraw fromanalyses of United States
feminismemergingfromthe social sciences and humanities,as well
as fromnonacademicsources,in orderto lay the foundationfora more
informedand consequentlymoreproductivediscussionof feminismin
the UnitedStates.For the sake of clarity,I employPeltola,Milkie,and
Presser's(2004) use of the terms"pre-Baby-Boom," "Baby-Boom,"and
"Baby-Bust" feminists to indicatefeminist generationswithbirthyears
1900-1944,1945-1969, and 1970-1981 respectively.7 1use theterm"third
wave feminist"to referspecificallyto authorscontributingto a bodyof

literaturethatinvokesthethirdwave label.I beginmytextualanalysisby
asking,how do thirdwavefeminists differentiate
themselvesfromsecond
wave,ormorebroadlyspeaking,non-thirdwave feminists? Drawingfrom
bothquantitativeand qualitativedata,I theninvestigatewhat evidence
thereis to substantiatetheseclaimsofdifference.Buildingon thisanaly-
sis,I concludebyexamininghow and to whatextentthedominantwave
rhetoricitselfmightelucidateor obfuscatefeministdifferences.
Differences
Age/Cohort-Based
One important wayin whichthirdwavefeminists distinguishthemselves
frompreviousgenerationsof feministsis in termsof composition.As
Rasmusson(2004) writes,"If one wordwere to sum up the goals of the
thirdwave it wouldbe diversity.A centraltenetofthirdwave feminism
is to include women who have previouslybeen excludedfromsocial
movementsdue to race, class, and sexual orientationprejudice"(429).
Indeed,thirdwave feministspridethemselveson hearingand responding
to themultiracialfeministcritiquesoffeminismin the early1980s,and
thirdwave feministsfrequently incorporateelementsofthiscritiqueinto
theiranti-identity,
pro-multiplicityarguments.A primeexampleofthis
is Heywoodand Drake'sintroduction to ThirdWaveAgenda,wherethey
describethethirdwave as "youngfeminists who . . . gotgenderfeminism
in college,alongwithpoststructuralism, and are now hardat workon a
feminismthatstrategicallycombineselementsofthesefeminisms, along
withblackfeminism, women-of-color feminism, working-class feminism,
pro-sexfeminism, and so on" (1997,3). Theygo on to argue:
A thirdwavegoalthatcomesdirectly out oflearningfromthesehistories
is thedevelopment
and. . . traditions ofmodesofthinking thatcancometo
terms with the bases
shifting
constantly
multiple, of inrelation
oppression to
themultiple axes
interpenetrating ofidentity,and the of
creation a coalition
politicsbasedontheseunderstandings.(1997,3)
Despite the thirdwave's rhetoricalcommitmentto diversityand its
recordof creatingdiversefeministorganizations(e.g.,The ThirdWave
Foundation),thirdwave feminismhas not escaped chargesof racial,
ethnic,and class bias. Focusingon the works of Naomi Wolf,Katie
Roiphie,and ReneDenfeld,Siegelargues:
Thoughtheyindeeddissentfromsomeoftheir(mainstream, white)feminist
in thecontent
forebears a closereading
oftheirvariousarguments, [ofthese
wavetexts]
third . . . reveals offeminist
towhichthisnextgeneration
theextent
makesomeofthesameproblematic
historiographers assumptionsas didtheir
predecessors.LikeSteinem,theseauthorspositionthemselvesas harbingers
of
a new order,a new order,thatis,formiddle-class, white
heterosexual, women.
(1997b,64)
Youngwomenofcolorin pursuitofgenderequalityhave also takenissue

withthecontinuedpresenceofracial,class,and ethnicbias in thirdwave
feminism(see, forexample,Hernandezand Rehman2002). Whilesome
thirdwave textssuccessfully reflectthedifferences ofrace,ethnicity,and
class amongwomen (e.g.,Walker'sTo Be Real 1995 and Hernandezand
Rehman'sColonize This! 2002),others(e.g.,Baumgardner and Richards'
Manifesta!2000) read as if the racial and class biases thatonce plagued
manyfeministtheoriesand practicesare no longerofconcern.
The questionremains,then,how does theyoungergenerationoffemi-
nistscompareto oldergenerations offeministsin termsofracial,ethnic,
and class diversity?
To answerthisquestionI drawon datafromthe 1999
Gallup poll, "Centuryof the Woman,"which is a modifiedprobability
sample of English-speaking womenlivingin the UnitedStateswho are
eighteenyearsofage andolder.8In additionto a numberofideologicaland
sociodemographic questions,respondents wereasked whethertheycon-
siderthemselvesto be feministor not. Responseswerecodedintothree
categories:"yes," "no," and "sometimes/depends." Forpurposesof this
paper,I combinedthe"sometimes/depends" withthe"yes" responses.Of
the923 womensurveyed, only43 (4.7%) answered"sometimes/depends";
mydecisionto combinethesetwogroupsoperatesundertheassumption
thatwomenwho "sometimes"considersthemselvestobe feminists prob-
ably have morein commonin termsof identityand ideologicallywith
thosewho generallyconsiderthemselvesto be feministsthanthosewho
underno circumstances considerthemselvesto be feminists.
Table 1 summarizesthe sociodemographiccharacteristicsof three
generationsoffeminists.Odds ratiovalues lowerthanone indicatethat
generation in question(Baby-Bust in theleftcolumnorPre-Baby-Boom in
therightcolumn)have,on average,significantly lowervalueson thesocio-
demographic characteristicin question.The comparisonofaveragesindi-
cates thatself-identifiedfeministsofthe Baby-Bust generationweresig-
less
nificantly likely than their in
counterparts theBaby-Boom generation
to identifythemselvesas white,weremorelikelyto identify themselves
as Black or Hispanic,wereon averageless well educated,and on average
reportedlower householdincome levels than theiroldercounterparts.
Fewerdifferences are seen betweenthe Baby-Boomand Pre-Baby-Boom
generation,althoughwomen in the Pre-Baby-Boom generationreported
lowerhouseholdincome,and wereless likelyto workfull-time.
Whilea significantportionoftheseeducationalandincomedifferences
is most likely explainedby differences in age, these differenceshave
importantimplications for the claims about ideological similarities
and
Table 1.
BivariateRelationshipbetweenSociodemographic
and FeministGenerations:1999 Gallup Poll
Characteristics
"CenturyoftheWoman"(N=316)
Means Odds Ratios1:
(Comparison to
Baby-Boom)
Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pre-Baby- , Pre-Baby-
baby"Bust Boom
(N=1Q1) (N=93) Boom(N=98)
White 0.583 0.878 0.864 0.195*** 0.884
(0.495) (.329) (0.345) (0.071) (0.367)
Hispanic 0.111 0.041 0.009 2.938+ 0.216
(0.316) (0.199) (.0953) (1.749) (0.243)
Black 0.148 0.061 0.045 2.667* 0.730
(0.357) (0.241) (0.209) (1.336) (0.454)
H.S. Education 0.343 0.184 0.245 2.316* 1.446
(0.477) (0.389) (0.432) (0.765) (0.495)
Col}ege 0.241 0.449 0.245 0.389** 0.399**

graduate
(0.430) (0.500) (0.432) (0.118) (0.120)
Income1 4.300 5.484 4.640 0.258*** 0.383***
(1.614) (1.672) (1.848) (0.262) (0.273)
Not Currently
Q^ Q2U QAQQ L163 0.407*
Working
(0.430) (0.412) (0.301) (0.388) (0.164)
Workingfull Q 555 QAgQ QAQQ L4Q8 0.201***
time
(0.498) (0.502) (0.301) (0.395) (0.045)
Workingpart Q 15/ QJg4 Q Qgl QS3Q Q396,
time
(0.366) (0.389) (0.275) (0.308) (0.172)
Child 0.361 0.898 0.927 0.064*** 1.449
(0.483) (0.304) (0.261) (0.025) (0.719)
Single 0.639 0.122 0.027 12.679*** 0.201*
(0.483) (0.329) (0.164) (4.660) (0.133)
Divorced/ 0Q19 Q 133 Q n7 on^ Q 954
Separated
(0.135) (0.341) (0.335) (0.095) (0.394)
Note: Standard deviations ofmeans and standard errorsofodds ratio in
appear parentheses.
*
significant at 1%; *** significant
at 5%;* * significant at 0.1% (two-tailed
tests)
+ at 5% (one-tailedtest)
significant
1Incomeis measuredas a sevencategory variable;thecoefficientspresentedforthis
variableareobtainedbyexponentiating theorderedlogitcoefficient.
differences betweenthe "Baby-Bust"generationand the earlierfeminist

generations. I turnnow to an examinationoftheseideologicaldifferences.
As mentionedbefore,muchofthirdwave feminismhas come underfire
by olderfeministswho arguethatthirdwave feministsare "ambivalent
aboutfeminism"(Guy-Sheftall 2002)andhistorically misinformed (Davis
1995, Orr 1997). I proceedhereto evaluatethe validityof these claims
and otherslike themby comparinghow feministgenerationsdiffer with
regardto theirbeliefsaboutthepastsuccessesand futurerelevanceofthe
women'smovement.
Forpurposesofthispaper,whatis mostinteresting is that,compared
withearliergenerationsof feminists, the Baby-Bustgeneration(i.e., the
youngestgeneration)is indeedshown to be much morediverse.While
thereis no statisticaldifference betweenthe racial/ethnic composition
of the Baby-Boomand Pre-Baby-Boom generations,feminist-identified
womenoftheBaby-Bust generation aresignificantly less likelythanfemi-
nist-identified womenofearliergenerations to identify as white;members
oftheyoungerfeminist are
generation approximately three timesas likely
as olderfeminists to identifyas Hispanic,andmorethantwiceas likelyto
identify as black.Not onlyis theBaby-Bust generation morediversewith
respect to race and but
ethnicity, it is also shown to be considerably more
representative of education and income. Compared with the Baby-Boom
generation, youngerfeminists aremorethantwiceas likelyas tohaveonly
a high-school education,areless likelytohavegraduated fromcollege,and
on averagehave lowerhouseholdincome levels comparedwith second
wave feminists(althougha significant portionof these educationaland
incomedifferences is mostlikelyexplainedby differences in age).
Having established thatthe Baby-Bust feminist generationappearsto
be more diversewith respectto race,ethnicity, income,and education
thanearlierfeministgenerations, I now turnto examinethe ideological
similaritiesand differences betweenthisgenerationand earlierfeminist
generations. As mentioned before,much of thirdwave feminismhas
come underfireby olderfeministswho arguethatthirdwave feminists
are "ambivalentabout feminism"(Guy-Sheftall 2002) and historically
misinformed (Davis 1995, Orr I
1997). proceed here to evaluatethevalidity
oftheseclaimsand otherslike themby comparinghow feministgenera-
tionsdiffer withregardto theirbeliefsaboutthepastsuccessesandfuture
relevanceofthewomen'smovement.
The 1999"CenturyoftheWoman"pollprovidesuniqueandpreviously
unexploredinsightsintogenerationaldifferences in feminismby asking
womenofall ages a seriesofquestionsconcerningthepast,present,and
futureofthe AmericanWomen'sMovement.Tables 2 and 3 summarize
thegenerationaldifferences in women'sresponsesto questionsaboutthe
past and future of the women's movement,respectively. Table 2 presents
themeansand oddsratiosoffeministgenerations on severalindicatorsof
Table 2.
RelationshipbetweenHistoricalFeminismand FeministGenerations:
1999 Gallup Poll "CenturyoftheWoman"(N=316)
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparisonto
Baby-Boom
Baby-BustBaby-Boom Pre-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-
(N-101) (N=93) Boom(N=98) Bust Boom
How important has
thewomen'smove- 1.889 2.020 2.045 0.832 1.164
mentbeenin the
pastcentury? (0.824) (0.995) (0.882) (0.257) (0.258)
Comparedwithmen,how muchprogresshave womenmade in thepast 50
years:
At home 3.822 3.526 3.495 1.621 0.950
(0.998) (1.128) (1.067) (0.257) (0.255)
At work 3.741 3.443 3.364 1.813* 0.849
(0.951) (0.866) (1.047) (0.253) (0.257)
In School 4.065 3.840 3.741 1.576 0.820
(0.889) (.954) (0.980) (0.259) (0.259)
In Government & 3.368 3.112 3.411 1.711 1.840
Politics (0.876) (0.823) (1.037) (0.252) (0.261)
In athletics 3.935 3.621 3.726 1.846* 1.160
(0.930) (1.012) (0.900) (0.260) (0.258)
The extentto which Q^ QJW
lJlQ L/g3 L64g
women are seen as
sex objects (0.813) (0.807) (0.813) (0.262) (0.265)
Note:Standarddeviationsofmeansand standarderrorsofoddsratioappearin parentheses.
*
significant at 1%; *** significant
at 5%; ** significant at 0.1% (two-tailed
tests)
women'sevaluationofthesuccessofthewomen'smovementoverthepast
century. Womenwereaskedto evaluatethefollowing: "How important do
you think thewomen's movement has been in helpingwomen to obtain
greaterequalitywithmen?","Comparedwithmen,how muchprogress
have womenmade overthe past fifty yearsat home,at work,in school,
and
in government politics, and in athletics?",and "Comparedto theway
womenwereviewedfifty yearsago,do youthinktheviewofwomentoday
as sex objectshas increased,stayedthesame,or decreased?"
Whatis perhapsthemostinteresting aspectofthistableis the extent
towhichfeminists ofall generations sharebeliefsconcerningthepastsuc-
cesses and currentstateofthewomen'smovementin theUnitedStates.
On almostall of the above questions,feministsof all threegenerations

were statisticallyindistinguishable on theirevaluationof the successes
oftheAmericanwomen'smovement.On average,Pre-Baby-Boom, Baby-
Boom,and Baby-Bustfeministsall believethatthe women'smovement
has been "veryimportant"in helpingwomento obtaingreaterequality
with men,with the middlegenerationhavingthe greatestvariationin
response.Feministsof all threegenerationsresponded,on average,that
womenaremorelikelynow (thatis,in 1999)thantheywerefifty yearsago
to be seenas sex objects,andeach generation believesthatsocietycontin-
ues to treatmenbetterthanwomen.The youngestgeneration offeminists
differed fromtheoldertwogenerations only theirmorepositiveevalu-
in
ationsofthewomen'smovement'saccomplishments in theareasofwork
andathletics.Comparedwithearlierfeminist generations, feministsofthe
youngergeneration were more likely to believe that women have made
moreprogressconcerning genderequality in these areas.
Table 3 presentsthemeansand odds ratiosoffeministgenerations on
severalindicatorsofwomen'sbeliefsconcerning thefutureimportance of
thewomen'smovementand the timeneededto achievegenderequality.
Like Table 2, whatis mostnoticeableabouttheresultsis not theextent
to whichfeministgenerations butrather,
differ, theextentto whichtheir
beliefsare shared.Baby-Boomand Baby-Bust feministsshow statistically
similarbeliefsconcerning howsocietygenerally treatsmencomparedwith
women, theextent to which men andwomen remain unequalwithrespect
to education,responsibilities forchildrearing, society's(includingmen's
and women's)attitudeswomen,abouthow longit will be beforewomen
and menare treatedequally,and how important thewomen'smovement
will be in the next century.Of the eleven questionsanalyzedconcern-
ing the presentextentofgenderequalityand the futureofthe Women's
Movement,Baby-Boomand Baby-Bustfeministsgave significantly dif-
ferentanswerson onlythree:how muchchangeis neededbeforewomen
and men are equal withrespectto (a) legal protectionsand (b) responsi-
bilitiesrunningthehousehold,and how longit will be beforetheUnited
Stateselects a womanpresident.Withregardto the firsttwo questions,
youngerfeministsare morelikelyto believethatless changeis required
beforemenand womenare equal.10However,comparedwithBaby-Boom
feminists, feministsoftheBaby-Bust generationthinkit will takemuch
longer before a woman is elected presidentin theUnitedStates.Younger
on
feminists, average, believe that it will take betweentwenty-five and
one hundredyears,whiletheoldertwogenerations offeminists believea
womanwill be electedpresidentwithinthenextquartercentury.
The descriptivestatisticspresented in thesethreetablesalreadysuggest
thatsome discussionsofthirdwave feminismand its relationto earlier
generationshave been misguided.Whetherdue moreto the success of
the thirdwave's incorporation of multiracialfeministtheory,or to the
Table 3.
RelationshipbetweenthePresentand FutureofFeminismand Feminist
Generations:1999 Gallup Poll "CenturyoftheWoman"(N=316)
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison
to Baby-Boom
Baby-BustBaby-Boom Pie-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-
(N=1Q1) (N=93) Boom (N=98) Bust Boom
Whodoes society
treatbetter,women 2.660 2.765 2.755 0.676 1.014
ormen?
(0.567) (0.500) (0.492) (0.321) (0.333)
How muchchangeis needed beforewomenand men are equal withregardto:
Legalprotections 1.916 1.588 1.769 2.006** 1.462
(0.870) (0.641) (0.791) (0.267) (0.266)
Education 2.287 2.173 2.073 1.281 0.776
(0.897) (0.800) (0.906) (0.256) (0.258)
Responsibilities
runningthe 2.157 1.724 1.963 2.250** 1.613
household
(1.034) (0.809) (0.910) (0.264) (0.259)
Responsibilitiesfor
^^ Lm Lg()7 x^ L3Q1
child-rearing
(1.000) (0.841) (0.822) (0.266) (0.260)
Society'sattitudes ^ ^ ljn lM3 L36g
aboutwomen
(0.798) (0.703) (0.715) (0.268) (0.264)
Men's attitudes
^ L5?1 1J52 QM9 lM6
aboutwomen
(0.729) (0.689) (0.818) (0.278) (0.266)
Women'sattitudes Q g25
2JQ2 2JQ3 %Q4g Q9Q6
aboutwomen
(0.927) (0.729) (0.764) (0.267) (0.260)
How longuntil
womenaretreated 2.613 2.608 2.325 0.949 0.679
as well as men?
(1.488) (1.383) (1.326) (0.295) (0.286)
How important will

thewomen'smove-
^ ^ { M5 0654 057g.
mentbe in thenext
century?
(0.971) (0.977) (0.911) (0.254) (0.256)
Table 3., continued

RelationshipbetweenthePresentand FutureofFeminismand Feminist
Generations:1999 Gallup Poll "CenturyoftheWoman"(N=316)
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison
to Baby-Boom
Baby-BustBaby-Boom Pie-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-
(N=101) (N=93) Boom (N=98) Bust Boom
How long will it be
until a woman is 2.389 1.939 1.917 1.654* 0.770
elected resident?
(1.400) (1.003) (1.195) (0.256) (0.257)
Note:Standarddeviationsofmeansand standarderrorsofoddsratioappearin parentheses.
* at 5%; #*significant
at 1%; *** significant
at 0.1% (two-tailed
significant tests)
success of multiracialfeministsof earliergenerations, youngergenera-

tionsoffeministsare shownto be a muchmorediversegroupcompared
with olderfeministgenerations.What this analysisalso makes clear is
that,althoughyoungerand oldergenerations do,to some extent,differ in
theirbeliefsaboutgenderinequality,therearea greatnumberofissueson
whichthesefeminist generations agree.On average,youngerfeminists do
not, as some have argued, have an understanding of feminist history is
that
completely unlike thatofolder and
generations, younger feminists do not
appear to have a naive understanding ofthe time it takes to achievegender
equality(at least no morenaive thanoldergenerationsoffeminists). In
not do
short, only younger women identify as feminists at similarrates
comparedwitholdergenerationsofwomen,but thegenderideologiesof
youngerfeministsare in manyimportantways similarto thoseofolder
feministgenerations.
Taken as a whole,the degreeofsimilarity foundin theabove analysis
suggests that conceptions of waves offeminisms based on age and birth-
year cohort differences are at best limited in their abilityto clarifydiffer-
encesin contemporary feminism.Whiletheyoungerfeministgeneration
does appearto includea morediversegroupof women withrespectto
race,ethnicity, and education,youngwomen'sfeminismin mostrespects
seemsverysimilarto thefeminismofcomparatively olderwomen.
As I have presentedabove,however,manyhave arguedagainstequat-
ingthirdwave feminismwitha particularage groupor cohort,insisting
insteadthatthirdwave feminismbe understoodas a distincttheoretical
perspective. At thispoint,then,I turnmyattentionto thegrowing bodyof
literature thatcomesoutof,ordirectly addressesthirdwavefeminism. As
I approachthisliterature, myquestion now concerns the extent to which
understanding thirdwave feminismas a distincttheoreticalperspective
helpsus to understand
Americanfeministdifferences.I focusmyanalysis
on thirdwave textsthataddressissuesofperfection, andpower,
plurality,
becauseformanythirdand secondwave feminists, theseissuesseembest
betweensecondand thirdwave perspectives.
to capturethedifferences
TheoreticalDifferences: Pluralityand Power

Perfection,
Formanyfeminists, at theheartofthe debatebetweensecondand third
wave feminismslie issues ofperfection, plurality, and power.Byperfec-
tionI mean what constituteslegitimatefeministtheoriesand practices,-
bypluralityI mean to suggestcomplexidentities,systemsofoppression,
andfeminisms; andbypowerI meanto suggesthowsystemsofdominance
arecreated,maintained,and disrupted, and whichactorsand institutions
are involvedin these processes.However accurateor inaccuratethey
may be, manythirdwave feministsunderstandsecond wave feminism
as somethingthathas assumedits entitlement to defining feminismand
to demandingthatanyonechoosingto call her/himself feministlive in
accordancewiththatparticular ideology.In response,thirdwavefeminists
haveemphasizedthe"messiness"oftheirownlivesin termsofidentities,
beliefs,andactions,andhaverepeatedly calledforfeminisms thataddress
thecomplexity ofreallives.Centralto this call is thedemand forrecogni-
tionofthe ever-changing and alwaysmultiple routes to genderequality
and therealizationthata completelypurefeminism, untarnished byany
hintof oppression,does not exist.In the followingsection,I providea
moresubstantivediscussionof theseissues and what theyrevealabout
thefeministproductionofintergenerational difference. I use theissue of
eroticpower to illustratehow these issues play out in practice.
Perfection& Plurality
The perceptionon the partof thirdwave feministsof a unifiedsecond
wave feminismthatdemandsthatpeople (especiallythosecallingthem-
selvesfeminists) livea lifecompletelyconsistentwitharbitrarily circum-
scribedfeministidealsis foundin muchofthirdwave feministliterature.
In a particularlyclearexampleofthis,JanisCortese(1997)writes,"I feel
like just by beingbornafteryou [secondwave feminists], I've somehow
signed some contract. . . that saysthatI haveto do everythingyousay,live
to
up yourexpectations, achieve what you wanted to achieve,orelse it'sa
betrayal ofsome sort."Or, as Walker(1995)writes, "Constantly measuring
up to some cohesivefully down-for-the-feminist-cause identitywithout
contradictions and messinessand lustsforpowerand luxuryitemsis not
a funoreasytask" (xxxi).11 Whilesome mightrespondto thesewritersby
reminding us thatsocial movementsforequalityare meantto be neither

"fun"nor"easy" (e.g.,DickerandPiepmeier2003, 18),othersmightargue
thirdwave feminists'characterization ofsecondwave feminists is unfair.
Analyzingthewaysin whichindividualpeople(feminists included)may
be contributing to genderinequalityis not the same as demandingthat
everyonelive in completeconsistencywitha particularbranchofsecond
wave feminism.
Justified or not,manythirdwave feministshave respondedto these
perceiveddemandsforperfectionby emphasizingthe "messiness" of
womenandmen's"reallives" (DickerandPiepmeier2003,16);thirdwave
feminists contrastthemselveswithsecondwave feminists bypositioning
themselvesas thefirsttobe "real"andto tell"thetruth"aboutfeminism,
women and desire.In her introduction to To Be Real, Rebecca Walker
(1995) differentiates third wave feminism frompreviousfeminismsby
suggestingthat, in the past, feminists have feltobligatedto maintaina
feminist partyline,despite its tenuous connection to thereallivesofmost
girls and women.12 In contrast, it is thirdwave feminists who "have done
the difficult workofbeingreal (refusing to be boundby a feministideal
not oftheirown making)and tellingthe truth(honoringthe complexity
and contradiction in theirlivesbyaddingtheirexperienceto thefeminist
dialogue)"(Walker1995,xxxiv).This thirdwave projectinvolvesgrap-
plingwiththe realitythatwomen do not necessarilyshareexperiences
and perspectives, thatthelines betweenoppressedand oppressorare not
always clear, and thatsome women do, in fact,enjoytheirpositionsin
what otherssee as a patriarchalsociety.As JoanMorgan(1999) writes,
"onlywhenwe've toldthetruthaboutourselves - whenwe've facedthe
factthatwe are oftencomplicitin our oppression - will we be able to
take fullresponsibility forour lives" (23). While some thirdwave femi-
nistsmightconcedethatthe characterization of secondwave feminism
as demandinga singularperfection at bestonlydescribesa portionofall
secondwavefeminism, manythirdwavefeminists maintainthatthethird
wave's emphasison multiplicity distinguishes it from previousfeminist
perspectives. The very ideas that there is one best way to be feminist
(even if that is unattainable) and that there is one best feminism(evenif
it is yetto be discovered)are said to sit uncomfortably withthirdwave
feminism.As Baumgardner explains, third wave feminism is about "get-
ting in touch with your own desires - whether it's your ambition oryour
or
sexuality yourmaternity" and
(Pollitt Baumgardner 2003, 3 16-3 17),not
relearning your desiresso that are
they entirely consistent with someone
else's feministideals.
Power
Relatedto issues ofperfection and pluralityare issues ofpower.Specifi-
cally,thirdwave feministstendto view themselvesas effective agentsof
changein waysthattheybelieveare different fromthoseofsecondwave
feminists.Whilefeministsofboth"waves" acknowledgethatthepower
to maintainand changesystemsof oppressionis situatedat both the
microand macrolevels,and while feministsassociatedwithbothwaves
to some extentsee cultural,political,and economicrealmsas important
sitesforsocial change,thirdwave textstendto privilegethe micro-level
and theculturalspheresoverothers.Influencedbypoststructuralism and
queertheory, thirdwave feministssee the culturalrealmas a keysite of
politicalchange;forthirdwave feminists, feministtheory/activism often
involvesindividualsdestabilizingcategories,performing parodies,and
reinterpretingidentitiesand signs(e.g.,Baumgardner and Richards2000,
52; herrup1995; Payette2002), in additionto moretraditionalformsof
feministcollectiveaction(e.g.,Baumgardner and Richards2000; Labaton
and Martin2004).
Thirdwavefeminists' beliefin thepowerofreinterpretation andparody,
combinedwith theirfocus on microlevelculturalchange,helps us to
understandwhatis amongthe most controversial issues in intergenera-
tionalfeminism:the (ab)usesof women'ssexuality.Withregardto this
issue,manythirdwave feminists wantto changethebeliefthatthemas-
ter'stoolscan neverdismantlethemaster'shouseto themaster'stoolscan
sometimeshelpto dismantlethemaster'shouse,providedtheyareusedin
subversiveways.In thirdwave feminismthehammerthatwas once used
to poundthenails intoplace is used to poundthroughwindows;thesaw
is now used to cut throughthewalls,-and the screwdriver is now turned
counterclockwise, freeingall thathad been previouslyscrewedtightly
into place. Or, at least thatis the hope. As Baumgardner and Richards
(2000)write,"The pointis thatthe culturaland social weaponsthathad
been identified (rightlyso) in the secondwave as instruments ofoppres-
-
sion womenas sex objects,fascistfashion,pornographic materials - are
no longerbeingexclusivelywieldedagainst women and are sometimes
wieldedby[andfor]women"(141). Whilethirdwavefeminists continueto
see significant in
genderdifferences power and third
privilege, wave texts
openlydiscusstheadvantages that can be gained from women's exercising
theireroticpower.13
Thirdwave feminismhas justifiedwomen's manipulationof erotic
power in two ways. First,some thirdwave feminismmaintainsthat
women today,while still disadvantagedcomparedwith men, are in a
betterpositionto exercisepowercomparedwithwomenseveraldecades
ago.As Morgan(1999)writes,"Most ofus can'timagineourliveswithout
access to birthcontrol,legalizedabortions,the rightto vote,or many

of the same educationaland job opportunities available to men" (59).14
While oldergenerationsmost likelyagreewith this point,thirdwave
feminists frequentlytakethisa stepfurther,arguingthatbecauseoftheir
moreempoweredposition,womentodayare,at least in some cases,able
to wieldeffectivelythe "toolsofpatriarchy"to theirown advantage(e.g.,
Baumgardner and Richards2001, 141; Cortese 1997; Cox et al. 1997;
Morgan1999),15 and thisis thepointat whichthirdwave feminism views
itselfas breakingwithmuchofthefeminismthatprecedesit. As Morgan
(1999)writes:
In the past,feministswere understandably
loath to condoneutilizingerotic
poweras a meansofbattlingsexism.Manyremembered all too vividlya time
wheneroticpowerwas all womenhad- anditwas rarelyenoughto circumvent
Butwhilewomentodaystillexperiencesexism,we do
abuse and exploitation.
so in markedlydifferentways.Manyofus are empoweredenoughto combine
our eroticpowerwith resourcesthat were unimaginableto our mothers -
money,education,talent,driveambition,confidence, and thefreedomto just
"
"go forours. (221)
Leaving aside the implication that second wave feministslacked talent,

drive,ambition,and confidence, hereMorgan,likemanyotherthirdwave
feminists,takes the positionthatcontemporary womenarebetterable to
use theireroticpower(also called "prettypower"and "pussypower")to
advancetheirownpositionin societyin largepartbecauseofthesuccesses
ofpreviousgenerations offeminists.
A seconddefenseofwomen'suse oferoticpower(also voicedby Joan
Morgan)arguesthatbecause womenlack power,theyshouldbe entitled
touse whatpowertheydo havewithoutridiculefromwomen(particularly
feministwomen,who supposedlyacknowledgewomen'slack of power
and resources).As VeronicaWebb(1995)relates,"ifyouarea woman,any
waythatyou can amass powerand moneyyouhave to do it as longas it's
ethical,because it's just somethingthatwe don'thave . . . [P]eoplesay [']
well,womentradingofftheirlooksstripsthemoftheirpower,[']butit has
empowereda lot ofwomen"(215).In heressays,"Femme-Inism: Lessons
ofmyMother"and "I learnedfromtheBest,"forexample,Paula Austin
(a self-described
blackfemme)describeshow hermother,a "high-femme
whore" with verylimitedresources,was able to "feel accomplished,
adequate,ofuse to herfamily,sendinghersister,Lucille,to school and
feedingLucille's childrenas well as herown" throughstrategicuse her
sexuality(2002b,158). She thendescribeshow she and herbutchwhite
loverstrategicallyused theirown sexualitywhentheyfoundthemselves
strandedin ruralNorthCarolina.Scaredtobe an interracial lesbiancouple
in a regionwitha reputationforintolerance,Austinconsciously"play-
acts" herfemininity forthe car-shopaudienceand,in so doing,finds"a
senseofcontrol"as theyrespondpredictably to herfemininity. As Morgan

(1999)writes,"In a worldoflimitedresources,trickin' - usingsex (orthe
wealth,and power- is a viablemeans
suggestionofit) to gainprotection,
ofelevatingone's game" (215).
Eroticpower,then,is seen by thirdwave feministssimultaneouslyas
somethingthatwomenshouldbe able to use wheneithertheylack other
resourcesor when theyare in a positionpowerfulenoughto "control
the tools of patriarchy."While Morganand otherthirdwave feminists
(e.g.,Baumgardner and Richards2000; Cox, Johnson, Newitz and Sandell
1997)notethelimitationsofrelyingsolelyon women'seroticpower,(e.g.,
that "by itselferoticpoweris not all thatpowerful,"thatit is "easily
replaceableand inexhaustiblein supply,"thatall womendo nothave the
same access to eroticpower,and thatthe exerciseof eroticpowerdoes
not do much to challengethe social structureof genderinequalityand
in some cases even reinforcesgenderstereotypes), in some situations,it
remainsforthema meansthrough which individual womencan express
sexualdesires,advance their
economic and social positionsin society,and
empowerthemselves.
Feminisms
Re-Presenting
Whileit is truethatmanythirdwave textsapproachthe issue of erotic
powerfroma positionthatis different frommany"secondwave" femi-
nists, the claim that the third wave can be distinguishedfromother
feminismson thebasis ofits theoreticaluniquenessis problematicforat
least threereasons.First,to the extentthatthirdwave feministscall for
a feminismthatemphasizes"messiness"and "multiplicity," thirdwave
feministsare,in effect, a
privileging particular feminist perspectiveover
otherfeministperspectives.Second,and more importantly, thirdwave
feministswereclearlynot the firstto have objectedto a singularnotion
offeminism,norare theythe firstto make multiplicity centralto their
for
critique(see, example, Collins 1990;Lorde 1984;MoragaandAnzaldiia
1981). Multiracialfeminist historiesrevealthatcalls formultiplicitywere
expressed well beforethe late 1970s and early1980s, but onlyin the late
1970s werewhitewomen "forcedkickingand screaming"to noticethe
negativeconsequencesoffeminism's unifiedsubject"woman"
fictionally
(Haraway1991, 157). Only when the women's movementhad achieved
publicrecognition, when Women's Studieshad been institutionalizedin
university, and
government, communitysettings, and when people of
colorhad been recognizedby the dominantwhite societyas important
political actors,were women of color feministswidely recognizedby
established(i.e., upper-middle-class white) feministsas having legiti-
mate,althoughdifferent, feminist perspectives.The rhetoricthatbases
theuniquenessofthirdwave feminismon its centralizing ofmultiplicity

in effectcontributesto the erasureofmultiracialfeministtheoristsand
theorizing in feministhistories.
Third,claims concerningthe theoreticaluniqueness of thirdwave
feminism areinherently problematic to theextentthattheyfailto address
theprocessbywhich"thirdwave feminism"is produced.Whenmaking
claims about "thirdwave feminism"or "youngerwomen'sfeminisms"
it mustbe remembered thatthirdwave anthologies,like all anthologies,
arestrategicallyproduced.Theydo notconstitutea representative sample
of "thirdwave" or "youngerwomen's" feminism;at best,theycapture
whata handfuloffeminists(e.g.,RebeccaWalker,BarbaraFindlen,Leslie
Heywood,and Jennifer Drake) understandthirdwave feminismto be, or
perhaps more accurately,whatit shouldbe.
Two examplesareparticularly illustrativeofthethirdwaveproduction
process:In Rebecca Walker's preface to To Be Real, she describesthepro-
cess throughwhichshe solicitedand editedessaysto be includedin her
now heavilycitedvolume.She writes:
WhenI initially I toldthemI wasediting
metwithcontributors, an anthology
onfeminism andfemaleempowerment inthe90;sandaskediftheyhadbeen
thinkingaboutanytopicorthemeorexperience thatseemedappropriate.Gen-
peopleoffered
erally, almostgenericexperiencesofbeinga womanina sexist
WhenI explained
society. furtherthatI waslooking foressaysthatexplored
contradictionand ambiguity,
thatexplored femaleempowerment fromthe
ofwhatinyourlifehas beenempowering
perspective foryou- as opposedto
whathas beendisempowering, andirrespectiveofwhatit is supposed to be
empowering- thenthesmall the
voices, quiet,never-said-this-out-loud
voices,
begantospeak,(xxxvi,myemphasis)
Solicitingsubmissionsfora proposededitedcollectionin 2004, We Want
It Now! ThirdWaveManifestos, editorElizabethBerilasentthefollowing
e-mailguidelinesto would-becontributors:
Eachmanifesto - orrant- shouldclearlyidentify a specific
politicalissueof
concernas wellas yourdemandsforchange.WeWantIt Now!is intended
fora general
audienceas wellas fortheclassroom andshouldtherefore avoid
heavyacademeseor specializedlanguage. We areinterested in submissions
fromstudents, activists,
thinkers,artists,and academics.Manifestos may
be pragmatic,provocative,outrageous,serious,funny,fresh,or in-your-face.
Unafraidofcontradictions, thesethirdwavemanifestos mayembody several
ofthesequalitiesatonce.
The call forpapersthengoes on to suggestpossibletopicsand evenpos-
sible titlesforsubmittedpieces,including"How Come FeministsGive
Sex Worka DirtyName?" and "FUCK! Manifesto:RadicalFeministsfor
a FutureUndertheControlofKindness."
Providing guidelinesforpotentialcontributors is,ofcourse,a necessary

stepin publishingan anthology, and in no way do I mean to suggestthat
the aforementioned editorshave erredby solicitingparticulartypesof
manuscripts. WhatI do wantto suggestis thatthe strategy employedby
theseparticulareditors(amongothers)is one thatseeks bothto present
a coherentthirdwave feminismand to contrastthiswave withall that
camebefore.The editorsin theabovetwoexamplesclearlyapproachtheir
projectswithparticularunderstandings ofthirdwave feminism.Bothare
lookingforcontradiction: Berilais clearlyseekingnonacademic,personal
writing, andWalkeris hopingforessaysthatchallengewhatis "supposed
to be empowering." The factthatWalkeroriginallyreceivedessaysthat
reflected"almostgenericexperiencesofbeinga womanin a sexistsoci-
ety,"and the factthatBerila(and I suspectothereditorsas well) feelit
necessaryto emphasizethatessaysshouldtakea particularform(ranting,
manifesto-like, no jargon)suggeststo me thatthirdwave feminism, and/
oryounger women'sfeminism mightbe bothmorediverseandmoresimi-
lar to secondwave feminismthantheseanthologiessuggest.16 My point,
again,is notto minimizetheimportanceoftheseanthologies,butrather
to encouragefeministscholarsand activiststo see theseanthologiesfor
what theyare: insightful, thoughtprovoking, and empowering(to both
authorsand readers)essays, that have no doubt fosteredfeministdebate
and feministactivism.They are not,however,representative of young
in
women'sfeminism anygeneralizable sense.
Thoughthirdwave feminists'(ab)usesoferoticpower,combinedwith
theircritiquesofperfection and theirinsistenceon pluralityhave indeed
been the siteofnumerous controversies in contemporary Americanfemi-
nism,controversy in itselfdoes not denote a new "wave" of feminism.
Indeed,every moment of American feminism has been marked by con-
troversy and difference.The American "Women's Suffrage Movement" or
"firstwave" offeminismwas markedby differences in whetherwomen
shouldhave therightto thevote,whichwomenshouldhave therightto
thevote,andhow womenshouldproceedin fighting forsuffrage;and the
"second"wavewas similarlymarkedbymultiplecontroversies, including
the"sex wars,"andtheoreticaldebatesbetweenand amongcultural,radi-
cal,liberal,andMarxistfeminists (see forexampleHirschandKeller1990
andTong1998).Whiledebatesconcerning the(ab)usesoferoticpowerand
women'ssexualitymaybe particularly divisive,it is misleadingat best,
anddamagingat worst,to forcethecomplexity ofthisdebateto maponto
a predetermined "wave" timeline.Whatdo we riskwhenwe lump"older"
feministsincludingPatriciaHill Collins,IrisMarionYoung,MaryDaly,
GayleRubin,CatherineMcKinnon,GloriaAnzaldua,and AdrienneRich
intothe "secondwave"?
Havingcomparedthewaverhetoric withtheavailablequantitativeand
qualitative data thatspeak to feminist differences, I wantto suggesthere
thatwe maydo betterto understandthirdwave feminismas an identity,

constantlyin process,ratherthana distinctfeministperspective, cohort,
or age group.Given thatthe thirdwave label is used at varyingtimesto
invokean age group,a cohort,and a theoreticalframework, and given
thatnone oftheseusages appearsto denotea particularly distinctfemi-
nistgroup,it maybe thatuncriticaluse ofthewave analogydoes moreto
obfuscatethanto elucidatethe diversityofhistoricaland contemporary
feminisms. Whilethewave analogymayhaveat firstbeenused to empha-
size theconnectionbetweenAmericanfeminismin the 1960sand 1970s
and theAmericanmovementforwomen'ssuffrage, as MarshaLear(1968)
has suggested,relianceon this framework forunderstanding American
feminismundoubtedly contributedto themarginalization ofcontinuous,
less publicized,strugglesof working-class women and women of color
throughout thepast centuries(Morgan2003; Springer 2002).
Representing feminisms'past,present,and futureas a seriesofwaves
may help some to see connectionsbetweenlarge-scalepublic feminist
movementsofthepast centuries,but lumpinghundredsofthousandsof
womenunderthe term"secondwave" and othersunderthelabel "third
wave" feministscertainlycontributes to thehomogenization withinand
the erasureofsimilaritiesacrossthesegroupsas well. Such labels might
be acceptableif,in fact,cleardistinctionsbetweenthesegroupsexisted,
but the evidencereviewedhere suggestsjust the opposite.Ratherthan
representing Americanfeminismas three(semi-(distinctwaves,however,
a more productivepresentationof feministhistorymightemphasize
continuityover time,while simultaneouslyhighlighting the constant
of
diversity thought, movement, and actorsat each historicalmoment.It
may be that future of
representations American feminisms maybe able
to recognizesuchcontinuity anddiversity whilesimultaneously invoking
thethirdwave label,but thiswill requirea drasticshiftfromthecurrent
use ofthewaverhetoric. A poststructuralist
use ofthirdwaveidentity will
require firstand foremosta recognition that this identitycategory, and
thosewhichit createsby means ofopposing,"are nevermerelydescrip-
tive,but alwaysnormative,and as such,exclusionary"(Butler1995,50).
CatherineE. Harnoisis an AssistantProfessor

in theDepartmentofSoci-
ology at Wake ForestUniversity. Her researchseeks to bridgefeminist
theoriesand quantitativesocial researchmethods.Send correspondence
to harnoice@wfu.edu.
Notes
1. An earlierversionof this articlewas presentedat the annual meetingof
the AmericanSociological Association in August 2005 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.The authorwould like to thankAndrewPerrin,JudithBlau,

BarbaraRisman,KarolynTyson,Susan Bickford,TanyaGolash-Boza,and Joe
Harringtonfortheirhelpfulcommentsregarding themanuscript.
2. CatherineOrr(1997)has arguedthatthe term"ThirdWave" was used by a

groupof womenwho collectivelycreatedan anthology,The
multicultural
ThirdWave:FeministPerspectiveson Racismin themid-1980s.
3. This theoreticalapproachto describingthe "thirdwave" is in some cases

intertwined with the cohortapproach,as manypointto how the sociopo-
liticalcontextin whichthirdwave feminismemergedhas changedfeminist
politicsfora particulargenerationofwomen.Garrison(2000)and Dickerand
Piepmeier(2003),forexample,explainhow comingof politicalage under
the influenceofmoderncommunicationtechnology, late global-capitalism,
postmodernism and "postfeminism" has affectedthe goals,ideologies,and
politicalstrategiesof youngerfeminists.Kinser(2004, 133) combinesthese
cohortand theorybased definitions by defining thethirdwave as a "current
era politicalbody whose constituentspracticea multiplicityof feminist
ideologiesand praxeswhile generallysharingthe followingcharacteristics:
(1) Theycame to youngadulthoodas feminists;(2) Theypracticefeminism
in a schizophrenic culturalmilieu. . .; (3) Theyembracepluralisticthinking
withinfeminism. . . and (4) Theylive in feminismin constanttensionwith
postfeminism."
of usingacademiccohorts
4. I do not directlyinvestigatethe appropriateness
to understandwaves of Americanfeminismin this article.I suggesthere,
however,thatthisapproachtounderstanding feministwavesis equally,ifnot
moreproblematic, comparedwithotherframeworks. Graduate-school cohort
undoubtedly contributesto how scholars
understand feminism, butfeminist
frameworks thatrelysolelyon academictraining(1) marginalizefeminists
outsideoftheacademy,(2) perpetuatethetheory /practicedichotomy, and (3)
implythatacademiccohortis (one of?)themostimportant featuresofone's
feminist perspective.
the "wave"
5. As I arguein Harnois2005a,an additionalproblemsurrounding
metaphoris thatthewaves ofAmericanfeminismare rarelypresentedin a
globalcontext.
6. See Aronson(2003) foran excellentdiscussionof the diversityof young

women'sattitudestowardfeminismand genderrelations.
7. In thisstudy,theaverageage offeministsin theBaby-Bust is 23.4,

generation
thosein the Baby-Boomgenerationaverage41.7 yearsof age,and the mean
age forthePre-Baby-Boom generationis 68.5 years.
8. The randomsample was stratified with respectto age so that therewere

at least 300 women in each of the followingage categories:18-29,30-53,
and >54.
9. Whiteis a dichotomousvariablewhereself-identification as white=l and

nonwhite=0.Hispanicis a dichotomousvariablewhereself-identification as
Hispanic=land non-Hispanic=0. Black is a dichotomousvariablewhereself-
identificationas black=l and nonblack=0.H.S. Educationis a dichotomous
variablewherehavinggraduatedfromhighschool,but not havingattended
college=landhavingeithermoreorless formaleducation=0.Collegegraduate
is a dichotomousvariablewherehavinggraduatefroma collegeoruniversity
is coded 1 and not havinggraduatedfroma collegeor university is coded0.
Income is a seven categoryvariablewherehighervalue represents a higher
householdincome.Not currently workingis a dichotomousvariablewhere
thosenotcurrently in thepaidlaborforcearecoded1 andthosecurrently work-
ingarecoded0. Working fulltimeandWorking parttimearebothdichotomous
variablescodedin thesameway.Childis a dichotomous variablewherehaving
at leastone childis coded1 andnothavinghadanychildrenis coded0. Single
andDivorced/Separated arebothdichotomous variableswheremembership in
thespecifiedcategory is coded 1 andnon-membership is coded0.
10. It shouldbe emphasizedthaton averageThirdWaversbelieved"a moderate

amountofchange"was stillneededin bothoftheseareas.
11. This perceiveddemandforperfection is furthercomplicatedbythecatch-22

thatmanyyoungfeminists findthemselvespresented with:on theone hand,
youngfeminist activistsfeeltheyarebeingpressuredtofollowin thefootsteps
ofolderfeministgenerations, usingsimilarstrategies(perhapsbecausethese
are the ones thatthe media is likelyto recognize)to achievesimilargoals,-
on theotherhand,youngfeministsoftenfindthereis a shortageofspace to
thrivein thesepositions,as olderfeministsoccupymostofthetoppositions.
Two quotationscapturethis dynamicwell: ThirdWave feministMadelyn
Detloff(1997,78) writes,"I sense a reluctanceon thepartofsecondwavers
topass thetorchto thenextgeneration ofleaders/7andSecondWavefeminist
RobinMorgan(2003,578) retaliates," Speakingformyself, I'm hangingon to
mytorch,thankyou. Get yourown damnedtorch/'to whichPollitt(2003,
311) agrees.
12. See also Payette(2002,141).
13. Note thatthis use of "eroticpower"is qualitativelydifferent

fromLorde's
(1984)use of"eroticpower."
14. Forsimilarsentiments,
see also Findlen(1995)andBaumgardner
andRichards
(2000).
15. It is importantto mentionthatmanythirdwavefeminists notethatthereare

situationsin whichwomenbelievethemselvesto be in controlofthe'tools
ofpatriarchy'whiletheyare"in fact"notin control.In otherwords,women's
and girls'beliefsthattheyare in controlis not the mostimportantcriteria
fordetermining whethertheyarebeingexploited(Baumgardner andRichards
2000; Byrd2004; Frank2002).
produced,thereare a varietyofstrate-
16. Whileall anthologiesare strategically
gies that editorsuse to produceanthologies.If we comparethese editorial
strategiesto that of Obioma Nnaemeka'sin Sisterhood,Feminisms,and
Power:FromAfricato the Diaspora, the differences become clearimmedi-
ately.WhileWalkerandBerilaseekto producea coherentbodyofThirdWave
feminist Nnaemekauses herintroduction
writing, to emphasizethediversity
offeminist perspectiveswithinAfricaandtheAfrican diaspora.Shehighlights
wherecontributors agreeanddisagreeandsheexplicitly resiststhetemptation
to defineAfricanfeminism in oppositionto Western/whitefeminism. Hersis
an anthologythatseemsto emergefromthebottom-up, whereWalker'sand
Berila'sappearto emergemorefromthetop-down.
References
Aikau,Hokulani,KarlaErickson,andJennifer L. Pierce,eds.2005. "MakingTrou-
ble fortheBinaryBetweenSecondand ThirdWaveFeminism:Reconceptual-
izing'Waves7and 'Generations'in FeministTheory."Paperpresentedat the
annualmeetingoftheAmericanSociologicalAssociation,Philadelphia,PA.
Austin,Paula. 2002a. "I learnedfromthe Best."faneSexes it Up: TrueConfes-
sions of FeministDesires,ed. MerriLisa Johnson, 91-106. New York:Four
WallsEightWindows.
. 2002b. "Femme-Inism:Lessons of My Mother"Colonize This!: Young
Womenof Color on Today'sFeminism,eds. Daisy Hernandezand Bushra
Rehman,159-167.New York:Seal Press.
Bailey,Cathryn.1997."MakingWavesandDrawingLines:The PoliticsofDefining
VicissitudesofFeminism"Hypatia12(3):17-28.
Baumgardner, Jennifer and Amy Richards.2000. Manifesta: Young Women,
Feminism,and theFuture.New York:Farrar, Straus,and Giroux.
Butler,Judith.1994. "ContingentFoundations:Feminismand the Question of
'Postmodernism/" FeministContentions:A PhilosophicalExchange,eds. S.
Benhabib,J.Butler,D. Cornell,and N. Fraser.New York:Routledge.
Collins,PatriciaHill. 1990.Black FeministThought:KnowledgeConsciousness,
and thePoliticsofEmpowerment. New York:Routledge.
Cortese,Janis.1997."The ThirdWWWave: Whowe are,whatwe see." Retrieved25
Jan.2008,from:http://www.3rdwwwave.com/addresses/janisaddress.html
Cox,AnaMarie,FreyaJohnson, AnnaleeNewitzandJillianSandell.1997."Mascu-
linitywithoutMen: WomenReconcilingFeminismand Male-Identification."
ThirdWaveAgenda:BeingFeminist,Doing Feminism,eds. Leslie Heywood
and Jennifer Drake,178-206.Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress.
Davis, AngelaY. 1995. "Afterward." To Be Real: Tellingthe Truthand Chang-
ing the Face of Feminism,ed. Rebecca Walker,279-84. New York:Anchor
Books.
Dent,Gina. 1995."Missionary Position."ToBe Real: TellingtheTruthand Chang-
ing the Face of Feminism,ed. Rebecca Walker,61-75. New York:Anchor
Books.
Detloff,Madelyn.1997. "Mean Spirits:The PoliticsofContemptbetweenFemi-

nistGenerations"in Hypatia12(3):76-99.
Dicker,RoryandAlisonPiepmeier.2003. Catchinga Wave:ReclaimingFeminism
forthe21st Century.Boston:Northeastern University Press.
Drake,Jennifer. 1997."ThirdWaveFeminisms."FeministStudies23(1):97-108.
Evans,SarahM. 2003. Tidal Wave:How WomenChangedAmericaat Century's
End. New York:FreePress.
Findlen,Barbara,ed. 1995.ListenUp: VoicesfromtheNextFeministGeneration.
Seattle:Seal Press.
Freeman,Jo. 1996. "Waves of Feminism."Retrieved2005, from:http://www.
jofreeman.com/feminism/waves.htm.
GallupOrganization, ICR SurveyResearchGroup,1999,"Gallup/USATodayPoll
#9902007: CenturyoftheWoman,"hdl:1902.29/D-31402 http://id.thedata.org/
hdl%3A1902.29%2FD-31402OdumInstitute[distributor(DDI)].
Garrison,EdnieKaeh.2000. "U.S. Feminism-Grrrl Style!Youth(Sub)Cultures and
theTechnologiesoftheThirdWave."FeministStudies26(1): 141-170.
Guy-Sheftall, Beverly.2002. "Response froma 'Second Waver" to Kimberly
Springer'sThird WaveBlackFeminism?7" Signs27(4): 1091-1094.
Haraway,Donna. 1991."A CyborgManifesto:Science,Technology, andSocialist-
Feminismin the Late TwentiethCentury."Simians,Cyborgs,and Women:
The ReinventionofNature,149-181.New York:Routledge.
Harnois, CatherineE. 2005a. "Re-PresentingFeminisms:Past, Present,and
Future."Paperpresentedat theannualmeetingoftheAmericanSociological
Association,Philadelphia,PA.
Harnois,CatherineE. 2005b. "Different Paths to DifferentFeminisms?Bridg-
ing MultiracialFeministTheories with QuantitativeSociologicalGender
Research."Genderand Society19(6):809-828.
Henry,Astrid.2003. "Feminism'sFamilyProblem:FeministGenerationsand the
Mother-Daughter Trope."Catchinga Wave:ReclaimingFeminismforthe21st
Century, ed. RoryDickerand AlisonPiepmeier.
Hernandez, Daisy and BushraRehman,eds.2002. ColonizeThis!:YoungWomen
ofColoron Today'sFeminism.New York:Seal Press.
herrup,mocha jean. 1995. "VirtualIdentity."To Be Real: Tellingthe Truthand
ChangingtheFace ofFeminism,ed. RebeccaWalker,239-252.
Heywood,Leslie and Jennifer Drake, eds. 1997. Third Wave Agenda: Being
Feminist,Doing Feminism.Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress.
Hirsch,Marianneand EvelynFox Keller,eds. 1990. Conflictsin Feminism.New
York:Routledge.
Huddy,Leonie, FrancisK. Neely and MarilynR. LaFay. 2000. "The Polls-
TrendsSupportfortheWomen'sMovement."Public OpinionQuarterly64:
309-350.
Johnson,Mern Lisa, ed. 2002. fane Sexes it Up: True ConfessionsFeminism
Desire.New York:FourWallsEightWindows.
Karlyn,KathleenRowe. 2003. "Scream,PopularCulture,and Feminism'sThird
Wave: 'I'm Not My Mother."'Genders.Retrieved2005, from:http://www.
genders.org/g38/g38_rowe_karlyn.html.
Kinser,AmberE. 2004. "NegotiatingSpacesfor/through ThirdWaveFeminism."
NWSAJournal16(3):124-153.
Labaton,Vivienand Dawn LundyMartin,eds. 2004. The Fire this Time. New
York:AnchorBooks.
Lear,Marsha. 1968. "The Second FeministWave" New YorkTimes Magazine,

March10: 24-25,50-62.
Lorber,Judith.1993.ParadoxesofGender.New Haven:Yale University Press.
Lorde,Audre.1984.SisterOutsider:Essaysand Speeches.Trumansberg, NY: The
CrossingPress.
Mann,S. A. andD. J.Huffman. 2005. "The Decentering ofSecondWaveFeminism
and theRise oftheThirdWave."Scienceand Society69(1):56-91.
Moraga,Cherrieand GloriaAnzaldua,eds. 1981. This BridgeCalled My Back:
Writings byRadical WomenofColor.Watertown, MA: PersephonePress.
Morgan, Joan. 1999. When Chicken Heads Come Home to Roost:My Lifeas a
Hip-HopFeminist.New York:Simon& Schuster.
Morgan,Robin,ed.2003.Sisterhood Is Forever:TheWomen'sAnthology fora New
Millenium.New York:Washington SquarePress.
Nnaemeka,Obioma. 1998. "Introduction:Readingthe Rainbow." Sisterhood,
Feminisms,and Power:FromAfricato theDiaspora,ed. ObiomaNnaemeka,
1-35.Trenton.NT:AfricaWorldPress.
Orr,CatherineM. 1997. "Chartingthe Currentsof the ThirdWave." Hypatia
12(3):29-45.
Payette,Patricia.2002. "The FeministWife?:Notesfroma PoliticalEngagement."
faneSexesit Up: TrueConfessionsofFeministDesire,ed. MerriLisa Johnson,
139-170.New York:FourWallsEightWindows.
Peltola,Pia,MelissaMilkieandStanleyPresser.2004 "The 'Feminist'Mystique."
Genderand Society18:122-44.
Pollitt,Katha and Jennifer Baumgardner. 2003. "Afterword: A correspondence
betweenKathaPollittandJennifer Baumgardner." Catchinga Wave:Reclaim-
ing Feminismforthe21st Century,eds. RoryDicker and Alison Piepmeier,
309-320.Boston:Northeastern University Press.
Rasmusson,Sarah L. 2004. "ThirdWave Feminism:Historyof a Social Move-
ment."Encyclopediaof AmericanSocial Movements,ed. ImmanuelNess,
429-435.Armonk,NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Schnittker,Jason,Jeremy FreeseandBrianPowell.2003. "WhoAreFeministsand
WhatDo TheyBelieve?"AmericanSociologicalReview68(4):607-622.
Schriefer,Amy."We've Only JustBegun:TranslatingThirdWave TheoryInto
ThirdWaveActivism."The LaughingMedusa. Retrieved2004, from:www.
gwu.edu/~medusa/thirdwave .html.
Siegel,Deborah L. 1997a. "The Legacyof the Personal:GeneratingTheoryin
Feminism'sThirdWave."Hypatia12(3):46-75.
. 1997b."ReadingbetweentheWaves:FeministHistoriography in a 'Post-
feminist'Moment."ThirdWaveAgenda:BeingFeminist,Doing Feminism,
eds. Leslie Haywoodand Jennifer Drake, 55-82. Minneapolis:Universityof
MinnesotaPress.
Springer,Kimberly. 2002. "ThirdWaveBlackFeminism?"Signs27(4): 1059-1082.
Tong, RosemariePutnam. 1998. FeministThought:A More Comprehensive
Introduction. Boulder,CO: Westview.
Walker,Rebecca. 1995. To Be Real: Tellingthe Truthand ChangingtheFace of
Feminism.New York:AnchorBooks.
Webb,Veronicaand RebeccaWalker.1995. "How does a Supermodeldo Femi-
nism" To Be Real, ed. RebeccaWalker,209-218.New York:AnchorBooks.
Whittier,Nancy. 1995. FeministGenerations:The Persistenceof the Radical
Women'sMovement.Philadelphia:TempleUniversity Press.

Re-Presenting Feminisms Past, Present, and Future

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-Presenting Feminisms Past, Present, and Future

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re-presenting Feminisms: Past, Present, and Future

Author(s): Catherine Harnois

In this articleI investigatewhat are thoughtto be generationaldiffer-

©2008 NWSA Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1 (Spring)

be betterunderstoodas an identity, ratherthanas a distincttheoretical

to includewomenwho have previouslybeen excludedfromsocial move-

which embracescontradictionand plurality,I suggesthere,following

In contrastto quantitativesocial researchon feminism,genderand

wave feminist"to referspecificallyto authorscontributingto a bodyof

Youngwomenofcolorin pursuitofgenderequalityhave also takenissue

Col}ege 0.241 0.449 0.245 0.389** 0.399**

differences betweenthe "Baby-Bust"generationand the earlierfeminist

On almostall of the above questions,feministsof all threegenerations

How important will

Table 3., continued

success of multiracialfeministsof earliergenerations, youngergenera-

TheoreticalDifferences: Pluralityand Power

reminding us thatsocial movementsforequalityare meantto be neither

access to birthcontrol,legalizedabortions,the rightto vote,or many

Leaving aside the implication that second wave feministslacked talent,

senseofcontrol"as theyrespondpredictably to herfemininity. As Morgan

theuniquenessofthirdwave feminismon its centralizing ofmultiplicity

Providing guidelinesforpotentialcontributors is,ofcourse,a necessary

thatwe maydo betterto understandthirdwave feminismas an identity,

CatherineE. Harnoisis an AssistantProfessor

Pennsylvania.The authorwould like to thankAndrewPerrin,JudithBlau,

2. CatherineOrr(1997)has arguedthatthe term"ThirdWave" was used by a

3. This theoreticalapproachto describingthe "thirdwave" is in some cases

6. See Aronson(2003) foran excellentdiscussionof the diversityof young

7. In thisstudy,theaverageage offeministsin theBaby-Bust is 23.4,

8. The randomsample was stratified with respectto age so that therewere

9. Whiteis a dichotomousvariablewhereself-identification as white=l and

10. It shouldbe emphasizedthaton averageThirdWaversbelieved"a moderate

11. This perceiveddemandforperfection is furthercomplicatedbythecatch-22

12. See also Payette(2002,141).

13. Note thatthis use of "eroticpower"is qualitativelydifferent

15. It is importantto mentionthatmanythirdwavefeminists notethatthereare

Detloff,Madelyn.1997. "Mean Spirits:The PoliticsofContemptbetweenFemi-

Lear,Marsha. 1968. "The Second FeministWave" New YorkTimes Magazine,

You might also like

Col}ege 0.241 0.449 0.245 0.389 0.399