| |

Symposium

Third-Wave Feminism and the Defense of

“Choice”
R. Claire Snyder-Hall

How should feminist theorists respond when women who claim to be feminists make “choices” that seemingly prop up patriarchy,
like posing for Playboy, eroticizing male dominance, or advocating wifely submission? This article argues that the conflict between
the quest for gender equality and the desire for sexual pleasure has long been a challenge for feminism. In fact, the second-wave of
the American feminist movement split over issues related to sexuality. Feminists found themselves on opposite sides of a series of
contentious debates about issues such as pornography, sex work, and heterosexuality, with one side seeing evidence of gender oppres-
sion and the other opportunities for sexual pleasure and empowerment. Since the mid-1990s, however, a third wave of feminism has
developed that seeks to reunite the ideals of gender equality and sexual freedom. Inclusive, pluralistic, and non-judgmental, third-
wave feminism respects the right of women to decide for themselves how to negotiate the often contradictory desires for both gender
equality and sexual pleasure. While this approach is sometimes caricatured as uncritically endorsing whatever a woman chooses to
do as feminist, this essay argues that third-wave feminism actually exhibits not a thoughtless endorsement of “choice,” but rather a
deep respect for pluralism and self-determination.

ow should feminist theorists respond when women In fact, the second-wave of the American feminist move-

H who claim to be feminists make “choices” that seem-

ingly prop up patriarchy? Juliette Fretté poses for
Playboy and calls herself a feminist; she says she finds her
ment split over issues related to sexuality. Feminists found
themselves on opposite sides of a series of contentious
debates about issues such as pornography, sex work, and
䡬

own buxom, blonde image “sexy as hell.” 1 “Hip-hop fem-
inist” Joan Morgan confesses her attraction to the trappings
of patriarchy, the rituals of chivalry, the thrill of objectifi-
cation, and the sexiness of male dominance: “Truth be told,
men with too many ‘feminist’ sensibilities have never” turned
her on.2 Laura Doyle supports feminism in public but advo-
cates “traditional gender roles” at home because they help
her feel “more feminine, and therefore more intimate.” She
believes women should “surrender” to their husbands and
let them be in charge, yet she calls herself a “feminist.” 3
Women’s relationship to their own socially con-
structed desires has long been a challenge for feminism.
R. Claire Snyder-Hall is Associate Professor of Political
Theory and Director of Interdisciplinary Studies at George
Mason University (rcsnyder@gmu.edu). Her publications
include Citizen-Soldiers and Manly Warriors: Military Ser-
vice and Gender in the Civic Republican Tradition (Row-
man & Littlefield, 1999) and Gay Marriage and Democracy:
Equality for All (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). She
would like to thank Lynn Sanders, Celeste Montoya, Mario
Feit, Michaele Ferguson, Nancy Hirschmann, Jennet Kirk-
patrick, Jill Locke, Lori Marso, Laurie Naranch, Mikki Snyder-
Hall, and Steve Vanderheiden for helpful comments that
greatly improved this essay.
heterosexuality, with one side seeing evidence of gender
oppression and the other opportunities for sexual plea-
sure and empowerment. Since the mid-1990s, however,
a third wave of feminism has developed in the US that
seeks to reunite the ideals of gender equality and sexual
freedom that came apart during the “sex wars.” Because
third-wave feminism insists that each woman must decide
for herself how to negotiate the often contradictory desires
for both gender equality and sexual liberation, it some-
times seems to uncritically endorse behaviors that appear
problematic. Despite media caricatures, however, the third-
wave approach actually exhibits not a thoughtless endorse-
ment of “choice,” but rather a deep respect for pluralism
and self-determination.
What’s Wrong with “Choice”?
This symposium focuses on debates surrounding what Linda
Hirshman has termed “choice feminism”—the idea that fem-
inism should simply give women choices and not pass judg-
ment on what they choose.While the term “choice feminism”
may not have made it into common or scholarly parlance,
the concept encapsulates widespread assumptions about
what contemporary feminism should be. It forms a key
part of American feminism as it has developed in the third
wave. For example, Naomi Wolf criticizes second-wave
feminism for being “judgmental” and praises third-wave

doi:10.1017/S1537592709992842 March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 255

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842

䡬
| |
䡬
Symposium | Women’s Choices and the Future of Feminism
feminism for being “tolerant of other women’s choices about
sexuality and appearance,” such as the choice to wear lip-
stick and heels.4 Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman
criticize the “white, middle-class perspective . . . of [second-
wave] academic feminism” for criticizing and rejecting the
“life choices” that their mothers made, like staying with alco-
holic husbands or wearing the veil.5 Susan Muaddi Darraj
articulates a definition of feminism often heard in women’s
studies classes, when she asks, “wasn’t feminism supposed
to be about making my own choices?” 6 While media cov-
erage of choice feminism has tended to focus on debates
about stay-home mothers, my discussion focuses on another
set of thorny issues: how “choice feminism” responds to
women who choose to engage in sex work, turn themselves
into sexual objects, or eroticize male dominance.
Issues of sexuality need to be understood in the context
of the longstanding tension within the feminist move-
ment between the sometimes contradictory principles of
gender equality and sexual liberation. Lori Marso argues
that all women have to deal with what she calls the
“demands of femininity”—women’s socially constructed
desires, which include both sexual desire and internalized
beliefs about gender identity and roles.7 Even women who
embrace feminism, she argues, often find their attempts
to achieve liberty and equality stymied by their own fem-
inine attraction to things that bolster patriarchy, as well as
䡬 by the dominant gender norms imposed on them. As Marso
puts it, “what women are taught to desire also denies them
their freedom. The very substance of what makes a woman
feminine is what holds her in bondage.” 8
In some respects, feminism can be viewed precisely as
the conscious struggle with the “demands of femininity.”
For third-wavers, feminism requires not a particular set of
choices, but rather acting with a “feminist consciousness,”
defined as “knowledge of what one is doing and why one is
doing it.” 9 While Marso’s work focuses on feminists who
actively resist the “demands of femininity,” I am more inter-
ested in feminists who embrace and enjoy femininity, while
also struggling for gender equality. While critics of “choice
feminism” rightly problematize some of the term’s impli-
cations, the concept itself entails a commitment to three
important principles essential to feminism—pluralism, self-
determination, and nonjudgmentalness.
The substantive content of choice feminism, I argue,
presents a compelling vision, yet the phrase “choice fem-
inism” remains problematic for a number of reasons and
should be replaced with the term “third-wave feminism.”
First, the term “choice” trivializes what are often hard deci-
sions. Women who make traditional or seemingly prob-
lematic “choices” are not necessarily taking the “easy way
out of the dilemmas of politicizing the personal,” as Fer-
guson suggests.10 Just looking at the final choice that was
made tells us nothing about how much a woman actually
struggled to balance competing imperatives, such as gen-
der equality and sexual pleasure.
256 Perspectives on Politics
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842
䡬
Second, calling the decisions women make “choices” con-
flates decisions made because of the obligations of religious
faith (veiling), the grim realities of economic necessity (stay-
ing with an alcoholic husband), or the preconditions nec-
essary for sexual arousal (traditional sex roles) with seemingly
elective options like posing for Playboy or wearing lipstick
and heels. At the same time, however, some “choices” that
appear whimsical to outsiders might actually be driven by a
woman’s deep-seated sexual desires (for exhibitionism or sub-
mission) or need to express her gender identity (as feminine).
Finally, the rhetoric of “choice” focuses attention on
the individual choice-maker and so takes the focus off the
ways in which women’s choices are often overdetermined
by societal structures and cultural traditions. This is an
important point because feminism is fundamentally about
transforming patriarchal culture and society. Women should
not have to choose between work and motherhood, respect
and sexual pleasure. Feminism requires expanding the
options available to women, so they can be truly self-
determining, and the rhetoric of “choice” obscures that
point.
That said, I argue that the substantive position repre-
sented by “choice feminism” is worth defending. By con-
textualizing “choice feminism” within the larger movement
of third-wave feminism, I hope to justify its content, while
avoiding the problematic implications of the “choice” ter-
minology. The contention that “feminism [was] supposed
to be about making my own choices” may sound trite, but
it speaks to the issue of self-determination that forms the
foundation of feminism.11 The third-wave version of
“choice feminism” I am advocating views freedom not as
simply “the capacity to make individual choices” but rather
as the ability to determine your own life path.12 At the
same time, however, just because coercive forces exist and
many of our decisions are not the product of perfectly
“free choice,” whatever that is, that does not mean that
women’s decisions about how to live their lives should not
be respected.
Second-Wave Feminism and
Its Demise
Women’s right to self-determination forms a core value
for feminism. In The Feminine Mystique (1963), Friedan
argued that the human being has an essential desire to
exercise self-determination. “This ‘will to power,’ ‘self-
assertion,’ ‘dominance,’ or ‘autonomy,’ as it is variously
called . . . is the individual affirming his existence and his
potentialities as a being in his own right; it is ‘the courage
to be an individual.’” 13 Due to the cultural norms of
femininity at the time, however, women were denied the
opportunity to self-determine and were reduced to being
their husbands’ helpmates. Friedan insisted that, contrary
to popular belief, gender equality would not erode women’s
femininity, happiness, or sexual fulfillment.14 Far from
| |
䡬
threatening sexual pleasure, she argued, gender equality
stood as its precondition.
While Friedan viewed the “choice between femaleness
and humanness” as a false dichotomy,15 the tension between
the two ideals quickly came to the fore with the onset of
radical feminism, which focused attention more specifi-
cally on the “private sphere.” Radical feminism aimed not
simply to provide women with equal opportunities within
existing society but to transform the entire multifaceted
sex/gender system that advantages men at the expense of
women. Proclaiming “the personal is political,” radical
feminists presented “provocative critiques of the family,
marriage, love, normative heterosexuality, and rape,” the
lynchpins of male dominance.16
Coming from the New Left and inspired by Marxist
forms of analysis, radical feminists viewed society as struc-
tured by a sex/class system and assumed that because of
their position in the patriarchal order women share a
common experience of oppression that could become the
basis for solidarity.17 The process of consciousness-
raising brought women together to talk about their expe-
riences, and through mutual sharing, they came to
understand that what they thought were merely personal
problems were actually politically overdetermined.
Consciousness-raising asked women to examine how their
own lived experiences contradicted the dominant ideol-
ogy and to recognize the ways in which internalized soci-
etal norms keep them complicit in their own oppression.
With the private sphere on the table for political dis-
cussion, sexuality became a subject of radical analysis and
sexual self-determination an explicit feminist goal. Arti-
cles like Anne Koedt’s “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm”
(1970) challenged the androcentric assumptions of Freud-
ian psychology, and the popular book Our Bodies, Our-
selves (1973) encouraged women to take responsibility for
their own sexual pleasure.18 Lesbianism became more
acceptable during this period, bolstered by the beginning
of the gay liberation movement in 1969. Two years later,
despite Friedan’s fear of the “lavender menace,” NOW
passed a resolution, stating “Be it resolved that a woman’s
right to her own person includes the right to define and
express her own sexuality and to choose her own life style
and be it resolved that NOW acknowledges the oppres-
sion of lesbians as a legitimate concern of feminism.” 19
When the site of political struggle moved to the domes-
tic sphere, heterosexual desire came under scrutiny as the
force that keeps women tied to men. Catharine MacKin-
non would put the critique this way:
Sexual desire in women, at least in this culture, is socially con-
structed as that by which we come to want our own self-
annihilation. That is, our subordination is eroticized in and as
female; in fact, we get off on it to a degree, if nowhere near as
much as men do. . . . I’m saying femininity as we know it is how
we come to want male dominance, which most emphatically is
not in our interest.20
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842
䡬
The attempt of radical feminists to address this dilemma
began with calls to renounce heterosexuality entirely.
Because of the cultural force and institutional power of
male dominance, radicals argued, women could have truly
equal relationships only with other women. Even hetero-
sexual women were called upon to refrain from sex with
men and become “political lesbians,” even if not sexual
ones.21
As this line of argument progressed, it unfortunately
took on a dogmatic tone that led to a series of splits,
including the gay/straight split that divided the move-
ment in the 1970s.22 Many straight feminists did not appre-
ciate statements like this one: “Men are the enemy.
Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
Every woman who lives with or fucks a man helps to
maintain the oppression of her sisters and hinders our
struggle. . . . If you engage in any form of sexual activity
with a man you are reinforcing his class power.” 23 While
this argument makes sense given the assumptions of rad-
ical feminist analysis, some heterosexual women under-
standably felt attacked and subsequently left the movement.
Unfortunately, the gay-straight split seriously under-
mined solidarity among women and weakened support
for feminism.24
The attempt of second-wave feminists to solve the con-
flict between gender equality and sexual desire by renounc-
ing heterosexuality could not eliminate the problem desire 䡬
poses to equality. As it turned out, some lesbians found them-
selves attracted to and actively embraced the same type of
dominance and submission denounced by MacKinnon and
others as central to heterosexuality. That is to say, they
rejected the ideal of sexual egalitarianism that had been cen-
tral to second-wave feminism and publicly endorsed play-
ing with power and inequality in the context of lesbian
sadomasochism (S/M). The desire of self-identified femi-
nists to engage in sexual practices that seemed violent and
oppressive destroyed the idea that there could be one per-
spective on sexuality that all feminists share. While advo-
cates of lesbian S/M spoke as sexual minorities claiming the
right to pursue their desires, opponents stood in judgment,
equating consensual S/M with abuse and comparing it to
Nazi genocide and the Inquisition.25 While this conflict may
seem obscure, it created a serious split within the second
wave.
Debates over pornography and sex work were equally
divisive. Radical feminists understood pornography and
prostitution as essential parts of patriarchy. Andrea Dwor-
kin famously defined pornography as “the graphic depic-
tion of vile whores” and proclaimed it “central to the male
sexual system,” insisting it “does not have any other mean-
ing.” 26 Female “sex trade workers,” however, viewed their
profession through very different eyes. Refusing the label
of “victim,” they offered an alternative view of feminism
that emphasized their right to pursue their own desires. As
one woman put it, “We’ve been out there doing our own
March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 257
| |
䡬
Symposium | Women’s Choices and the Future of Feminism
thing, fighting all the fights that you possibly can to be
females in any way we choose, and that’s our right and our
power. We were out there doing it long before the femi-
nists came in and started picketing clubs, saying that we
were exploiting ourselves.” 27 Feminism, she argues, is about
“personal empowerment,” and “the choice to be a strip-
per,” she insists is “personally empowering.” 28
Divisive debates about heterosexuality also continued.
Dworkin argued that sexual
intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously. . . .
There is no analogue anywhere among subordinate groups of
people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for pen-
etration, entry, occupation. . . . Intercourse is a particular reality
for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it,
violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of
privacy.29
Not only does Dworkin’s analysis portray the sexual prac-
tices of the vast majority of women as anti-feminist, but
her totalizing language seems to allow no room for other
interpretations of heterosexual relations.
While it is certainly necessary for feminists to offer analy-
ses and make judgments about a wide array of practices,
when a totalizing view is offered as the feminist position—
like S/M is abuse, pornography is male dominance, or
intercourse is violation—it is understandable that women
䡬 whose sexual proclivities are being criticized might respond
with defensiveness and anger. While theoretically an
exchange of views can be productive, criticisms of women’s
personal “choices,” often become, well, personal. For exam-
ple, Joan Nestle, a feminine lesbian who finds masculine
women attractive, reports being told by a member of
Women Against Pornography “that if I write about butch-
femme relationships in the past, I am O.K., but if I am
writing about them now in any positive way, I am on the
‘enemy list’” and a “‘believer in patriarchal sex.’” 30
Statements that seem judgmental of other women’s
choices—particularly when they are not really “choices”
but rather deep-seated desires or identities—can under-
mine the solidarity necessary to build a political move-
ment. While it might not have been the intent of feminist
theorists or activists to make women feel attacked, when
people feel their most personal decisions are being judged
or ridiculed, they often respond with anger. When femi-
nists tell prostitutes “You open your legs for the patriar-
chy,” they should not be surprised to be told, “You’re all a
bunch of fucking madonnas!” 31 This kind of dialogue is
not cathartic; it is counterproductive.
In Pleasure and Danger (1989), Dorothy Allison mov-
ingly talks about the deep shame women often feel about
their own sexuality, especially if it deviates from dominant
norms.32 Why would feminism deepen that shame by
standing in judgment of women’s most intimate desires?
Nestle recounts the story of her working-class mother,
who suffered years of societal judgment and persecution
258 Perspectives on Politics
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842
䡬
because she enjoyed sex with men in a way that was con-
sidered promiscuous and vulgar. She recounts,
As Andrea Dworkin’s litany . . . rang out that afternoon, I saw
my mother’s small figure with her inkstained calloused hands,
never without a cigarette, held out toward me” and she said, “’So
nu, Joan, is this the world you wanted me to have, where I
should feel shame and guilt for what I like? I did for all those
years of my life. . . . Don’t scream [ideology] at me, but help to
change the world so no woman feels shame or fear because she
likes to fuck.33
Unfortunately, painful conflicts such as these eventu-
ally split second-wave feminism into so-called “pro-sex”
and “anti-sex” camps. The judgmental stance many fem-
inists took towards women whose desires seemed to
reinforce or mimic patriarchal power relations seriously
damaged the feminist movement. Even today, fallout can
be seen in the still popular caricature of second-wave fem-
inists as “anti-male, anti-sex, anti-femininity, and anti-
fun.” 34 Even if they are too young to have personal
experience with the “sex wars,” women today often see
feminism as narrow-minded and judgmental, which con-
tributes to the “I’m not a feminist but . . .” phenomenon.
The Emergence of Third-
Wave Feminism 35
In the 1990s, a third wave of American feminism began to
emerge that seeks to revitalize feminism and avoid con-
tentious splits over sexual issues. Third-wave pioneer
Rebecca Walker believes a new wave of feminism is needed
because many young women view second-wave feminism
as rigid, judgmental, and divisive. They believe, she argues,
that in order to be a feminist one must live in poverty, always
critique, never marry, want to censor pornography and/or wor-
ship the Goddess. A feminist must never compromise herself,
must never make concessions for money or for love, must always
be devoted to the uplift of her gender, must only make an admi-
rable and selfless livelihood, preferably working for a women’s
organization. She fears that if she wants to be spanked before sex,
wants to own a BMW, is a Zen priest, wants to be treated “like a
lady,” prioritizes racial oppression over gender oppression, loves
misogynist hip-hop music, still speaks to the father that abused
her, gets married, wants to raise three kids on a farm in Mon-
tana, etc., that she can’t be a feminist.36
Walker explains that her capacious view of feminism devel-
oped as the solution to the problem of not wanting to
judge friends and family.
Third-wave feminism reintroduces the ideal of sexual
liberation into a feminist discourse that many believe came,
by the 1980s, to prioritize gender equality over sexual
autonomy and to view sexual desire as problematic. Accord-
ing to Leslie Heywood, the new movement “defends por-
nography, sex work, sadomasochism, and butch/femme
roles, but it also recuperates heterosexuality, intercourse,
marriage, and sex toys from separatist feminist dismiss-
| |
䡬
als.” 37 With its explicitly pro-sex agenda, it reaches out to
women like Liz Highleyman who says,
I resisted calling myself a feminist for many years because of my
negative associations and interactions with what we then called
“anti-sex” feminists (more fairly known, perhaps, as antiporn,
antiprostitution, abolitionist, or cultural feminists). In recent
years I have come to know many sex-positive feminists who
advocate strongly for freedom of expression, freedom of choice,
and improved conditions for women in the sex industry.38
Third-wave feminism strives to be inclusive and respectful
of the wide variety of choices women make as they attempt
to balance equality and desire.
Third-wave feminism is pluralistic and begins with the
assumptions that women do not share a common gender
identity or set of experiences and that they often interpret
similar experiences differently. It seeks to avoid exclusions
based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gen-
der identity, and so forth. It recognizes that women in
different subject positions often have very different per-
spectives. For example, as feminists of color pointed out
during the second wave, while white women fought for
the right to work outside the home, Black women had
almost always worked outside the home by necessity. Con-
sequently, many Black women would prefer to stay home
and care for their own families, rather than caring for the
children of white women, newly entering the workforce.
The right to work looks different, depending on where
you stand.
Third-wave feminism accepts the reality that multiple
definitions of feminism exist simultaneously. For exam-
ple, Hirshman insists that feminism requires women to
pursue the same kind of life traditionally pursued by upper
middle class men and argues that “by any measure, a life
of housework and child care does not meet [the] standards
for a good human life.” 39 Lauri Unmansky, on the other
hand, views mothering as central to feminism; she appeals
to cultural feminism, maternal thinking, and the ethics of
care, discourses that emphasize women’s traditional prac-
tices as a positive alternative to patriarchal culture.40 Ariel
Levy criticizes “raunch culture” for marketing objectifica-
tion as liberation.41 Nina Hartley, on the other hand, con-
sciously chose a career in pornography not only to fulfill
her deep-seated sexual desires but also to express her sex-
positive philosophy of life, which she says grew out of her
involvement in the “radical movements of the 1960s and
1970s,” including early second-wave feminism.42
With no common identity, experiences, or definition of
feminism, each feminist must make a conscious decision
about how to determine her own path through the contra-
dictory discourses that constitute contemporary society. “As
[women] struggle to formulate a feminism they can call their
own,” Walker explains, “they debunk the stereotype that
there is one lifestyle or manifestation of feminist empow-
erment, and instead offer self-possession, self-determination,
and an endless array of non-dichotomous possibilities.” 43
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842
䡬
Walker depicts third-wavers as “pioneers, outlaws who
demand to exist whole and intact, without cutting or cen-
soring parts of themselves,” which she considers “the very
best legacy of feminism.” 44 Thus, third-wave feminism is
not driven by the desire “to escape the dilemmas of femi-
nism in our personal lives,” as Ferguson contends—as if that
is even possible—but by conscious struggle with life’s com-
peting demands.45
Because of its commitment to pluralism and respect for
self-determination, third-wave feminism rejects judgmen-
talness. Lacking a common definition of feminism makes
it difficult to judge another woman’s claim to be a feminist
because a wide variety of choices—including contradic-
tory ones—could be justified as feminist. In addition, it is
hard to make judgments because a choice that appears
anti-feminist at first might look very different when prop-
erly contextualized. For example, a woman in lipstick,
heels, and a low-cut top might appear to reinforce patri-
archal standards of beauty. But what if she appears in
public on a butch lesbian’s arm? 46 And what does it mean
that a gorgeous blonde posing in Playboy chooses to call
herself a “feminist,” when most readers of that magazine
probably view feminists as anti-sex and anti-male? Per-
haps by eroticizing feminism, she helps build support for
political goals, such as reproductive freedom, policies to
create work /life balance, and safe, affordable childcare.
In my view, feminism cannot tell any woman how to 䡬
resolve her internal conflicts, but it does ask each woman to
reflect on her own desires and seriously consider how her
choices might play a role in propping up or calling into ques-
tion the sex/gender system. A “surrendered wife” might ask
herself, “When I submit to my husband, does he view me
as an equal with different needs or as a subordinate whose
needs are less important than his?” A Playboy centerfold
might ask herself, “Am I really expressing my deep-seated
sexual desires or just indulging my own narcissism? Does
the sexualized image I am projecting expand the bound-
aries of gender and sexuality for women or restrict them?”
A “hip-hop” feminist might ask herself, “While I enjoy dom-
inant men, what impact do misogynistic messages in pop-
ular music have on the socialization of young girls?” I do
not believe, in contrast to Marso, that women need to jus-
tify their choices to some imagined feminist community,
but I do believe that everyone should consider the impact
their choices have on themselves, other people, and the entire
ranges of values they hold dear, when they decide how to
live.47
While it often feels good to stand in judgment of oth-
ers, instead of criticizing what other women are doing,
third-wave feminists speak in the first person about their
own struggles. The best way for feminists to address the
problematic choices of women is to lead by example. For
instance, feminists should engage more actively in the pub-
lic sphere to make feminist voices more prominent in the
ears of American women. Through literary and cultural
March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 259
| |
䡬

Symposium | Women’s Choices and the Future of Feminism

production, we should continue working to expand the 33 Nestle 1989, 122.

possibilities for women to imagine themselves outside the 34 Snyder 2008.
boxes of patriarchy—whether girl gone wild, submissive 35 My analysis of third-wave feminism draws on Sny-
wife, or selfless mom—by offering images of alternative der 2008.
relationships, genders, and sexualities. Pornographic sex- 36 Walker 1995, xxxii.
uality, conservative lifestyles, and self-sacrifice for family 37 Heywood 2006, 260.
all have a place in society, but they should be simply three 38 Highleyman 1997, 146.
options among many, not new hegemonic norms. 39 Hirshman 2006, 33.
Given its basic assumptions, third-wave feminism will 40 Umansky 1996, 11.
probably never produce the kind of collective social move- 41 Levy 2005.
ment that existed in the second wave. Because it strives to 42 Hartley 1997, 57, 59.
be inclusive of all, collective action constitutes one of its 43 Walker 1995, xxxiv.
biggest challenges. Third-wave feminism has no illusions 44 Walker 1995, xxxv.
about reconstituting “women” as the subject of feminism 45 Ferguson 2010, 250.
or creating some kind of unified platform. Instead it asks 46 Nestle 1989, 236–237.
women to work together in coalitions to address issues of 47 Marso 2010.
shared concern. Third-wave feminism focuses attention
on equality and freedom for women in an array of discur-
sive locations. Far from viewing feminist conversations as References
over, it imagines them as never-ending. Allison, Dorothy. 1989. Public Silence, Private Terror.
In Pleasure and Danger: exploring female sexuality, ed.
Carole S. Vance. London: Pandora.
Notes Baumgardner, Jennifer, and Amy Richards. 2000. Mani-
1 Fretté 2008, 128. festa: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. New
2 Morgan 2006, 11. York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
3 Doyle 2001, 153, 158. Bell, Laurie, ed. 1987. Good Girls/Bad Girls: Feminists
䡬 4 Wolf 2006, 15. and Sex Trade Workers Face to Face. Toronto: The Seal
5 Hernández and Rehman 2002, xxii. Press.
6 Darraj 2002, 310. Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. 1973.
7 Marso 2006. Our Bodies, Ourselves. Boston: New England Free
8 Ibid., 114. Press.
9 Baumgardner and Richards 2000, 83. Darraj, Susan Muaddi. 2002. It’s Not an Oxymoron: The
10 Ferguson 2010, 250. Search for an Arab Feminism. In Colonize This! Young
11 Darraj 2002, 310. Women of Color on Today’s Feminism, ed. Hernán-
12 Ferguson 2010, 248. dez and Rehman. New York: Seal Press.
13 Friedan 1983, 310. Doyle, Laura. 2001. The Surrendered Wife: A Practical
14 Ibid., 317. Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with a
15 Ibid., 304. Man. New York: Fireside.
16 Echols 1989, 3–4. Dworkin, Andrea. 1981 [1979]. Pornography: Men
17 Grant 1993, 20–31. Possessing Women. London: The Women’s Press.
18 Evans 2003, 50. _. 2006 [1987]. Intercourse. New York: Basic Books.
19 Rosen 2000, 166; Evans 2003, 51. Echols, Alice. 1989. Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism
20 MacKinnon 1987, 54. in America 1967–1975. Minneapolis: Minnesota
21 Echols 1989, 233; Rosen 2000, 167. University Press.
22 Rosen 2000, 171–172. Evans, Sara. 2003. Tidal Wave: How Women Changed
23 Leeds Revolutionary Feminists 1981, 7. America at Century’s End. New York: Free Press.
24 Echols 1989, 240. Ferguson, Michaele L. 2010. Choice Feminism and the
25 SAMOIS 1982; Linden et al. 1982. Fear of Politics. Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 247–53.
26 Dworkin 1981, 200. Fretté, Julliette. 2008. The Write Stuff. Playboy 55 (6):
27 Bell 1987, 195. 84–85, 128.
28 Ibid., 190. Friedan, Betty. 1983 [1963]. The Feminine Mystique.
29 Dworkin 2006, 155–156. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
30 Nestle 1989, 148. Grant, Judith. 1993. Fundamental Feminism: Contest-
31 Bell 1987, 206, 11. ing the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory. New York:
32 Allison 1989, 108. Routledge.

260 Perspectives on Politics

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842

䡬
| |
䡬
Hartley, Nina. 1997. In the Flesh: A Porn Star’s Journey.
In Whores and Other Feminists, ed. Joan Nagle. New
York: Routledge.
Hernández, Daisy, and Bushra Rehman, eds. 2002.
Colonize This! Young Women of Color on Today’s Femi-
nism. New York: Seal Press.
Heywood, Leslie L., ed. 2006. The Women’s Movement
Today: An Encyclopedia of Third Wave Feminism, Vol-
ume 1: A–Z. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Highleyman, Liz. 1997. Professional Dominance: Power,
Money, and Identity. In Whores and Other Feminists,
ed. Joan Nagle. New York and London: Routledge.
Hirshman, Linda. 2006. Get To Work: A Manifesto for
Women of the World. New York: Viking.
Koedt, Anne 1970. “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm.”
Available at http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/
modern/The-Myth-ofthe-Vaginal-Orgasm.html.
Leeds Revolutionary Feminists. 1981. Love Your Enemy?
The Debate between Heterosexual Feminism and Politi-
cal Lesbianism. London: Onlywomen Press, Ltd.
Levy, Arial. 2005. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and
the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free Press.
Linden, Robin Ruth, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. H.
Russell, and Susan Leigh Star, eds. 1982. Against
Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis. San Fran-
cisco: Frog in the Well.
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1987. Desire and Power (1983).
In Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Marso, Lori Jo. 2006. Feminist Thinkers and the De-
mands of Femininity: The Lives and Work of Intellectual
Women. New York: Routledge.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sheffield Library, on 14 Jun 2021 at 17:27:30, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992842
Marso, Lori J. 2010. Feminism’s Quest for Common
Desires. Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 263–69.
Morgan, Joan. 2006. Hip-Hop Feminist. In The
Women’s Movement Today: An Encyclopedia of Third
Wave Feminism, Volume 2: Primary Documents, ed.
Leslie L. Heywood. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Nestle, Joan. 1987. A Restricted Country. New York:
Firebrand Books.
_. 1989. The Fem Question. In Pleasure and Dan-
ger: Exploring female sexuality, ed. Carole S. Vance.
London: Pandora.
Rosen, Ruth. 2000. The World Split Open: How the
Modern Women’s Movement Changed America. New
York: Penguin.
SAMOIS: A lesbian/feminist S/M organization. 1982
[1981]. Coming To Power. Boston: Alyson
Publications.
Snyder, R. Claire. 2008. Third Wave Feminism: A New
Directions Essay. Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture
and Society 34 (1): 175–96.
Snyder-Hall, R. Claire. 2008. The Ideology of Wifely
Submission: A Challenge for Feminism. Politics and
Gender 4 (4): 563–86.
Umansky, Lauri. 1996. Motherhood Reconceived: Femi-
nism and the Legacies of the Sixties. New York: New
York University Press.
Walker, Rebecca, ed. 1995. To Be Real: Telling the Truth 䡬
and Changing the Face of Feminism. New York: Anchor.
Wolf, Naomi. 2006. Two Traditions. In The Women’s
Movement Today: An Encyclopedia of Third Wave Femi-
nism, Volume 2: Primary Documents, ed. Leslie L.
Heywood. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 261