Re-presenting Feminisms: Past, Present, and Future

Author(s): Catherine Harnois

Source: NWSA Journal , Spring, 2008, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring, 2008), pp. 120-145
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071255

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to NWSA Journal

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms: Past, Present, and Future
CATHERINE HARNOIS

In this article I investigate what are thought to be generat

ences within contemporary American feminism. I identify
nant approaches to understanding "third wave" feminism:
age-based, and theory-based, and then analyze empirical da
the extent of difference within and across "waves" of Am
nism, using each of these approaches. Drawing from a com
qualitative and quantitative data, I argue that third wave
might be better understood as an identity, rather than a dist
cal perspective, age group, or cohort. My findings suggest th
of all ages share many important aspects of their gender
ideologies. Moreover, my analysis of "third wave" femin
those "second wave" texts that directly speak to generational
reveals that, in many cases, feminist scholarship itself re
very differences it aims to understand. To the extent that fe
arship has failed to question adequately dominant portraya
feminist generations, and has failed to recognize the diversity
and perspectives within all feminist generations, feminist
has, in effect, reified distinct, static waves of feminism.

Keywords: third wave / generations / identity

Introduction1

Despite the recent publication of numerous " third wave" feminist anthol-
ogies (e.g., To Be Real, Third Wave Agenda, Listen Up! Voices from the
Next Feminist Generation, Colonize This! and The Fire this Time) and
a handful of articles that take a more representative approach to analyz-
ing generational differences (e.g., Huddy, Neely, and LaFay 2000; Peltola,
Milkie, and Presser 2004; Schnittker, Freese, and Powell 2004), there
remains a pressing need for more systematic analyses of the relationship
between "second- wave" and "third wave" feminisms. Indeed, a good deal
of confusion still remains concerning what is actually meant by second
wave and particularly third wave feminism. Using a combination of socio-
logical and feminist research tools, I problematize the notion of distinct
"waves" of American feminism. I identify three dominant approaches
to understanding "third wave" feminism - cohort-based, age-based, and
theory-based - and then analyze empirical data to discern the extent of
difference within and across these waves. Drawing from a combination of
qualitative and quantitative data, I argue that third wave feminism might

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

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Re-presenting Feminisms 121

be better understood as
perspective, age group, o
ages share many import
Moreover, my analysis o
texts that directly speak
cases, feminist scholarsh
to understand.

Background

By most accounts, the term third wave feminism (as understood today)
was coined by Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker, cofounder of
the Third Wave Foundation and editor of the third wave anthology, To be
Real.1 In practice, "third wave feminism/t" is used in at least three ways:
to refer to an age group, a cohort, and a theoretical perspective.3 In the
case of the first, the term is used as a synonym for "young feminists." The
Third Wave Foundation, for example, describes itself as an organization
working to support women aged 15 to 30; and Sexing the Political, "an
online journal of third wave feminists on sexuality" requires its contribu-
tors to be "20- or 30-something feminists" (with the exception of those
contributing to the "Baby Boomer column"). In the case of the second, the
term is generally used to describe a generational cohort of self-identified
feminists who were brought up in the 1970s (and some would include
those reared in the 1980s), and who, consequently, developed political con-
sciousness during or subsequent to the antifeminist backlash of the 1980s
(Baumgardner and Richards 2000; Heywood and Drake 1997; Rasmusson
2003). Rather than relying on a birth-year-based cohort, Aikau, Erikson,
and Pierce (2005) suggest that feminist generations might be better under-
stood in terms of graduate-school cohorts. "[T]hose who entered graduate
school in the late 1960's and 1970's," they suggest, represent the "second
generation,-" those who entered in the 1980s are said to represent the
"2.5 generation;" and those who began in the 1990s represent the "third
generation."4
Those who define third wave feminism in terms of a theoretical per-
spective routinely point to the crucial influence of postmodernism and
multiracial feminist theory on the development of third wave feminism
(Heywood and Drake 1997; Mann and Huffman 2005). In addition, third
wave feminists frequently define the "third wave" by contrasting it to
"second wave" feminism - the feminism associated with those women
who were active in the American Women's Movement of the 1960s
and 1970s (Labaton and Martin 2004, xxv). Rasmusson (2004, 429), for
example, defines third wave feminism by distinguishing it from second
wave feminism, arguing that "a central tenet of third wave feminism is

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 122 Catherine Harnois

to include wom
ments [read sec
tation prejudice
privileged secon
postmodern thi
third wave feminist literature.
Despite the popularity of third wave feminism and the "third wave"
label, the wave metaphor more generally has come under increasing criti-
cism by feminists who feel that it inaccurately represents the history and
present of the American women's movement. Three criticisms stand out.5
First, as Springer (2002) and Morgan (2003) have argued, by focusing our
attention on large-scale public activism, the wave metaphor contributes
to the erasure of the rich history of American women's struggle for equal-
ity. Poor women and women of color, whose goals and strategies often
differ from those of middle- and upper-class white feminists, remain mar-
ginalized in wave rhetoric, where attention is focused on white women's
suffrage in the late nineteenth century and white women's right to equal
opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s. As Springer (2002) says, "the more
we learn about women of color's feminist activism, the less tenable the
wave analogy becomes" and that "the idea of a first wave beginning with
suffrage excludes the fact that Black women resisted gendered oppression
during the ante-bellum period" (1062). Bailey (1997), Orr (1997), and Henry
(2003) further argue that, by continually drawing what are thought to be
very clear distinctions between second wave feminism and third wave
feminism, continuity between the three waves of American feminism is
forgotten and the diversity of feminist ideology and activism within these
categories is lost, as popular images of 1970s bra-burning feminists come
to represent what would be better understood as a movement with a range
of ideologies, strategies, and participants.
A third problem with the wave metaphor, or perhaps more accurately,
with the way it is used, is that wave rhetoric does not sufficiently allow for
the growth, development, and revisions of feminist theories and theorists.
In third wave rhetoric, second wave feminism is typically depicted as some-
thing static, as if the multiracial feminist critique of white bourgeois femi-
nism, the rise of postmodernism, the development of new technologies,
a changing global political environment, and the institutionalization of
Women's Studies left the second wave completely unaffected. In comparing
third wave feminism to second wave feminism, third wave feminists gener-
ally draw on those second wave works published in the 1960s and 1970s,
giving insufficient attention to the arguably better developed and more
inclusive second wave feminism of the 1990s and twenty-first century.
The third wave metaphor then, is a site of both ambiguity and contro-
versy. While some might argue that the lack of a clear definition of third
wave feminism fits comfortably with a postmodern third wave feminism,

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Re-presenting Feminisms 123

which embraces cont

Kinser (2004), that th
with a the lack of co
wave and second wave
tension among femin
this paper by broadly
generations. While thi
sources, including a n
of the academy as well
two categories: quant
analyses.

Quantitative and Qualitative Feminist Analyses

Recent quantitative social science research that addresses waves of femi-

nism has, for the most part, done so by investigating the relationship
between age (or in some cases cohort) and feminist identification (e.g.,
Huddy, Neely, and LaFay 2000; Peltola, Milkie, and Presser 2004; Schnitt-
ker, Freese, and Powell 2003; Whittier 1995). For our purposes, perhaps the
most important finding to emerge from this research is that the propor-
tion of American women who identify as feminist has remained largely
unchanged over the past several decades (Huddy, Neely, and LaFay 2000).
Though some studies (e.g., Peltola, Milkie, and Presser 2004; Schnittker,
Freese, and Powell 2003) suggest that, when "controlling for background
characteristics," age or generation does affect the likelihood that an
individual will identify as feminist, these studies are largely limited by
research designs that assume the effect of background characteristics on
women's feminism is identical for women of different cohorts and for
women of different class, racial, and ethnic groups (Harnois 2005b).
While this line of research may indeed be helpful for those interested
in predicting feminist self-identification, I want to suggest here that
debates concerning waves of American feminism would benefit more
from descriptive statistical analyses rather than predictive models. While
predictive models seek to tease out or "control for" the effects of a number
of different sociodemographic factors (e.g., If we control for race, class, sex,
and marital status, how does age affect feminist identity?), descriptive
analyses make fewer cause-effect assumptions and instead aim to give us
a picture of what a particular groups looks like (e.g., What percentage of
women born between 1945 and 1969 identify as feminist? What percentage
of these women identify as nonwhite? What percentage of women born
between 1970 and 1981 identify as feminist? What percentage of these
women identify as nonwhite?). I present such descriptive analyses later
in this article.

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 Catherine Harnois

In contrast to q
women's studies
have relied prima
"postfeminist") w
compared to qua
previous gender
extent that it has
Listen Up!, Walk
and Heywood an
feminism (see, fo
volume of litera
for more diverse
tiques, in practice
feminism general
bra-burning, ma
1997; Davis 1995,
Siegel 1997a). Clea
than these repres
Previous gender
also been limited
what has become
it is dead (see, f
June 29, 1998). W
feminist scholars
women today are
1995; Karlyn 2003
younger generati
spective, it seems
the 1970s has bee
individualistic wr
1995; Guy-Shefta
2003, 313). I argu
As mentioned pr
United States has
advocate feminist
In this article,
feminism emerg
as from nonacade
informed and co
the United State
Presser's (2004) u
"Baby-Bust" femi
1900-1944, 1945-1

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 125

wave feminist" to refe

literature that invokes
asking, how do third w
wave, or more broadly
both quantitative and
there is to substantiat
sis, I conclude by exam
rhetoric itself might

Age/Cohort-Based

One important way in

from previous genera
Rasmusson (2004) wri
third wave it would be
is to include women
movements due to r
Indeed, third wave fem
to the multiracial fem
third wave feminists
their anti-identity, pr
is Heywood and Drake'
describe the third wav
in college, along with
feminism that strateg
with black feminism,
pro-sex feminism, and

A third wave goal that

and . . . traditions is th
terms with the multipl
the multiple interpenet
politics based on these u

Despite the third wa

record of creating di
Foundation), third w
ethnic, and class bias
Roiphie, and Rene De
Though they indeed dis
forebears in the conten
third wave texts] . . . rev
historiographers make s

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 126 Catherine Harnois

predecessors. Like
a new order, a new
(1997b, 64)

Young women of
with the continu
feminism (see,
third wave texts
class among wom
Rehman's Colon
Manifesta! 2000
many feminist t
The question rem
nists compare to
and class diversit
Gallup poll, "Ce
sample of Engli
eighteen years of
sociodemograph
sider themselves
categories: "yes,
paper, I combine
the 923 women s
my decision to c
that women who
ably have more
those who gener
under no circumstances consider themselves to be feminists.
Table 1 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of three
generations of feminists. Odds ratio values lower than one indicate that
generation in question (Baby-Bust in the left column or Pre-Baby-Boom in
the right column) have, on average, significantly lower values on the socio-
demographic characteristic in question. The comparison of averages indi-
cates that self-identified feminists of the Baby-Bust generation were sig-
nificantly less likely than their counterparts in the Baby-Boom generation
to identify themselves as white, were more likely to identify themselves
as Black or Hispanic, were on average less well educated, and on average
reported lower household income levels than their older counterparts.
Fewer differences are seen between the Baby-Boom and Pre-Baby-Boom
generation, although women in the Pre-Baby-Boom generation reported
lower household income, and were less likely to work full-time.
While a significant portion of these educational and income differences
is most likely explained by differences in age, these differences have
important implications for the claims about ideological similarities and

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 127

Table 1.
Bivariate Relationship between Sociodemographic
Characteristics and Feminist Generations: 1999 Gallup Poll
"Century of the Woman" (N=316)
Means Odds Ratios1:
(Comparison t

Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pre-Baby- , Pre-Baby-

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)
Working full Q 555 Q AgQ QAQQ L4Q8 0.201***
time

(0.498) (0.502) (0.301) (0.395) (0.045)

Working part Q 15/ Q Jg4 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

Note: Standard deviations of mea

* significant at 5%;* * significan
+ significant at 5% (one-tailed tes
1 Income is measured as a seven c
variable are obtained by exponen

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 128 Catherine Harnois

differences betwe
generations. I tur
As mentioned bef
by older feminist
about feminism"
1995, Orr 1997).
and others like th
regard to their b
women's movement.
For purposes of this paper, what is most interesting is that, compa
with earlier generations of feminists, the Baby-Bust generation (i.e.,
youngest generation) is indeed shown to be much more diverse. W
there is no statistical difference between the racial/ethnic compo
of the Baby-Boom and Pre-Baby-Boom generations, feminist-iden
women of the Baby-Bust generation are significantly less likely than f
nist-identified women of earlier generations to identify as white; mem
of the younger feminist generation are approximately three times as l
as older feminists to identify as Hispanic, and more than twice as lik
identify as black. Not only is the Baby-Bust generation more diverse
respect to race and ethnicity, but it is also shown to be considerably
representative of education and income. Compared with the Baby-
generation, younger feminists are more than twice as likely as to have
a high-school education, are less likely to have graduated from colleg
on average have lower household income levels compared with s
wave feminists (although a significant portion of these educationa
income differences is most likely explained by differences in age).
Having established that the Baby-Bust feminist generation appea
be more diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, income, and educ
than earlier feminist generations, I now turn to examine the ideol
similarities and differences between this generation and earlier femi
generations. As mentioned before, much of third wave feminis
come under fire by older feminists who argue that third wave femin
are "ambivalent about feminism" (Guy-Sheftall 2002) and histor
misinformed (Davis 1995, Orr 1997). I proceed here to evaluate the va
of these claims and others like them by comparing how feminist gen
tions differ with regard to their beliefs about the past successes and f
relevance of the women's movement.
The 1999 "Century of the Woman" poll provides unique and previously
unexplored insights into generational differences in feminism by asking
women of all ages a series of questions concerning the past, present, and
future of the American Women's Movement. Tables 2 and 3 summarize
the generational differences in women's responses to questions about the
past and future of the women's movement, respectively. Table 2 presents
the means and odds ratios of feminist generations on several indicators of

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 129

Table 2.
Relationship between Historical Feminism and Feminist Generations:

Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison to

Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pre-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-

How important has

the women's move- 1.889 2.020 2.045 0.832 1.164
ment been in the

past century?
Compared with men, how much progress have
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 extent to which lJlQ L/g3 L64g Q ^ QJW
women are seen as

sex objects
Note: Standard deviations of means and standard er
* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%; *** sign

women's evaluation of the success of the

century. Women were asked to evaluate t
you think the women's movement has
greater equality with men?", "Compare
have women made over the past fifty ye
in government and politics, and in athlet
women were viewed fifty years ago, do y
as sex objects has increased, stayed the
What is perhaps the most interesting as
to which feminists of all generations shar
cesses and current state of the women's

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 130 Catherine Harnois

On almost all of
were statisticall
of the American
Boom, and Baby
has been "very
with men, with
response. Femin
women are more
to be seen as sex
ues to treat men
differed from th
ations of the wo
and athletics. Com
younger genera
more progress c
Table 3 presents
several indicator
the women's mo
Like Table 2, wh
to which feminis
beliefs are share
similar beliefs co
women, the exte
to education, res
and women's) at
and men are tre
will be in the n
ing the present
Movement, Baby
ferent answers o
and men are equ
bilities running
States elects a w
younger feminis
before men and
feminists, femin
longer before a
feminists, on av
one hundred yea
woman will be e
The descriptive
that some discussions of third wave feminism and its relation to earlier
generations have been misguided. Whether due more to the success of
the third wave's incorporation of multiracial feminist theory, or to the

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 131

Table 3.
Relationship between the Present and Future of Feminism and Feminist
Generations: 1999 Gallup Poll "Century of the Woman" (N=316)
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison

Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pie-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-

Who does society

treat better, women 2.660 2.765 2.755 0.676 1.014
or men?

How much change is neede

Legal protections 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
running the 2.157 1.724 1.963 2.250** 1.613
household
(1.034) (0.809) (0.910) (0.264) (0.259)
Responsibilities for ^^ Lm Lg()7 x ^ L3Q1
child-rearing
(1.000) (0.841) (0.822) (0.266) (0.260)
Society's attitudes ^ ^ ljn lM3 L36g
about women
(0.798) (0.703) (0.715) (0.268) (0.264)
Men's attitudes ^ L5?1 1J52 QM9 lM6
about women

(0.729) (0.689) (0.818) (0.278) (0.266)

Women's attitudes 2JQ2 2JQ3 % Q4g Q9Q6 Q
about women
(0.927) (0.729) (0.764) (0.267) (0.260)
How long until
women are treated 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

the women's move- ^ ^ { M5 0654 057g.
ment be in the next
century?

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 132 Catherine Harnois

Table 3., co
Relationship betw
Generations: 19
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison

Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pie-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-

How long will it be

until a woman is 2.389 1.939 1.917 1.654* 0.770
elected resident?

Note: Standard deviations of

* significant at 5%; #* signif

success of multiracial
tions of feminists are s
with older feminist g
that, although younger
their beliefs about gend
which these feminist g
not, as some have argued
completely unlike that
appear to have a naive u
equality (at least no m
short, not only do youn
compared with older ge
younger feminists are i
feminist generations.
Taken as a whole, the d
suggests that conceptio
year cohort differences
ences in contemporary
does appear to include
race, ethnicity, and edu
seems very similar to t
As I have presented ab
ing third wave feminis
instead that third wave
perspective. At this poin
literature that comes ou
I approach this literatur
understanding third wa

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 133

helps us to understand
on third wave texts th
because for many thir
to capture the differe

Theoretical Differ

For many feminists, a

wave feminisms lie iss
tion I mean what cons
by plurality I mean to
and feminisms; and by
are created, maintaine
are involved in these
may be, many third
as something that has
to demanding that an
accordance with that p
have emphasized the "
beliefs, and actions, an
the complexity of real
tion of the ever-chang
and the realization tha
hint of oppression, d
more substantive dis
the feminist productio
erotic power to illustr

Perfection & Plur

The perception on th
wave feminism that
selves feminists) live a
scribed feminist ideals
In a particularly clear
like just by being bor
signed some contract .
up to your expectation
betrayal of some sort.
up to some cohesive fu
contradictions and me
a fun or easy task" (xx

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 134 Catherine Harnois

reminding us th
"fun" nor "easy"
third wave feminists' characterization of second wave feminists is unfair.
Analyzing the ways in which individual people (feminists included) may
be contributing to gender inequality is not the same as demanding that
everyone live in complete consistency with a particular branch of second
wave feminism.
Justified or not, many third wave feminists have responded to these
perceived demands for perfection by emphasizing the "messiness" of
women and men's "real lives" (Dicker and Piepmeier 2003, 16); third wave
feminists contrast themselves with second wave feminists by positioning
themselves as the first to be "real" and to tell "the truth" about feminism,
women and desire. In her introduction to To Be Real, Rebecca Walker
(1995) differentiates third wave feminism from previous feminisms by
suggesting that, in the past, feminists have felt obligated to maintain a
feminist party line, despite its tenuous connection to the real lives of most
girls and women.12 In contrast, it is third wave feminists who "have done
the difficult work of being real (refusing to be bound by a feminist ideal
not of their own making) and telling the truth (honoring the complexity
and contradiction in their lives by adding their experience to the feminist
dialogue)" (Walker 1995, xxxiv). This third wave project involves grap-
pling with the reality that women do not necessarily share experiences
and perspectives, that the lines between oppressed and oppressor are not
always clear, and that some women do, in fact, enjoy their positions in
what others see as a patriarchal society. As Joan Morgan (1999) writes,
"only when we've told the truth about ourselves - when we've faced the
fact that we are often complicit in our oppression - will we be able to
take full responsibility for our lives" (23). While some third wave femi-
nists might concede that the characterization of second wave feminism
as demanding a singular perfection at best only describes a portion of all
second wave feminism, many third wave feminists maintain that the third
wave's emphasis on multiplicity distinguishes it from previous feminist
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 (even if
it is yet to be discovered) are said to sit uncomfortably with third wave
feminism. As Baumgardner explains, third wave feminism is about "get-
ting in touch with your own desires - whether it's your ambition or your
sexuality or your maternity" (Pollitt and Baumgardner 2003, 3 1 6-3 17), not
relearning your desires so that they are entirely consistent with someone
else's feminist ideals.

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 135

Power

Related to issues of perfection and plurality are issues of power. Specifi-

cally, third wave feminists tend to view themselves as effective agents of
change in ways that they believe are different from those of second wav
feminists. While feminists of both "waves" acknowledge that the powe
to maintain and change systems of oppression is situated at both th
micro and macro levels, and while feminists associated with both wave
to some extent see cultural, political, and economic realms as importan
sites for social change, third wave texts tend to privilege the micro-level
and the cultural spheres over others. Influenced by post structuralism an
queer theory, third wave feminists see the cultural realm as a key site of
political change; for third wave feminists, feminist theory/activism ofte
involves individuals destabilizing categories, performing parodies, and
reinterpreting identities and signs (e.g., Baumgardner and Richards 2000,
52; herrup 1995; Payette 2002), in addition to more traditional forms o
feminist collective action (e.g., Baumgardner and Richards 2000; Labato
and Martin 2004).
Third wave feminists' belief in the power of reinterpretation and parody,
combined with their focus on microlevel cultural change, helps us t
understand what is among the most controversial issues in intergenera
tional feminism: the (ab)uses of women's sexuality. With regard to th
issue, many third wave feminists want to change the belief that the mas-
ter's tools can never dismantle the master's house to the master's tools can
sometimes help to dismantle the master's house, provided they are used in
subversive ways. In third wave feminism the hammer that was once used
to pound the nails into place is used to pound through windows; the saw
is now used to cut through the walls,- and the screwdriver is now turned
counterclockwise, freeing all that had been previously screwed tightly
into place. Or, at least that is the hope. As Baumgardner and Richard
(2000) write, "The point is that the cultural and social weapons that ha
been identified (rightly so) in the second wave as instruments of oppres-
sion - women as sex objects, fascist fashion, pornographic materials - are
no longer being exclusively wielded against women and are sometime
wielded by [and for] women" ( 141 ). While third wave feminists continue t
see significant gender differences in power and privilege, third wave texts
openly discuss the advantages that can be gained from women's exercising
their erotic power.13
Third wave feminism has justified women's manipulation of eroti
power in two ways. First, some third wave feminism maintains tha
women today, while still disadvantaged compared with men, are in
better position to exercise power compared with women several decade
ago. As Morgan (1999) writes, "Most of us can't imagine our lives without

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
136 Catherine Harnois

access to birth
of the same edu
While older gen
feminists frequen
more empowere
to wield effectiv
Baumgardner an
Morgan 1999),15
itself as breaking
(1999) writes:

In the past, femin

power as a means
when erotic power
abuse and exploita
so in markedly di
our erotic power
money, education
"go for ours. " (22

Leaving aside th
drive, ambition,
feminists, takes
use their erotic
advance their ow
of previous gene
A second defens
Morgan) argues
to use what powe
feminist women
and resources). A
way that you can
ethical, because i
well, women trad
empowered a lot
of my Mother" a
(a self-described
whore" with ve
adequate, of use
feeding Lucille's
sexuality (2002b
lover strategicall
stranded in rura
in a region with
acts" her femini

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 137

sense of control" as they

(1999) writes, "In a wor
suggestion of it) to gain
of elevating one's gam
Erotic power, then, is
something that women
resources or when the
the tools of patriarchy
(e.g., Baumgardner and
1997) note the limitatio
that "by itself erotic
replaceable and inexhau
same access to erotic p
not do much to challe
in some cases even rein
remains for them a me
sexual desires, advance
empower themselves.

Re-Presenting Fem

While it is true that m

power from a position
nists, the claim that
feminisms on the basis
least three reasons. Firs
a feminism that emph
feminists are, in effect
other feminist perspec
feminists were clearly
of feminism, nor are t
critique (see, for examp
1981 ). Multiracial femin
expressed well before t
1970s were white wom
negative consequences o
(Haraway 1991, 157). O
public recognition, wh
university, governme
color had been recogn
political actors, were
established (i.e., upper
mate, although differen

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 138 Catherine Harnois

the uniqueness of
in effect contributes to the erasure of multiracial feminist theorists and
theorizing in feminist histories.
Third, claims concerning the theoretical uniqueness of third wave
feminism are inherently problematic to the extent that they fail to address
the process by which "third wave feminism" is produced. When making
claims about "third wave feminism" or "younger women's feminisms"
it must be remembered that third wave anthologies, like all anthologies,
are strategically produced. They do not constitute a representative sample
of "third wave" or "younger women's" feminism; at best, they capture
what a handful of feminists (e.g., Rebecca Walker, Barbara Findlen, Leslie
Hey wood, and Jennifer Drake) understand third wave feminism to be, or
perhaps more accurately, what it should be.
Two examples are particularly illustrative of the third wave production
process: In Rebecca Walker's preface to To Be Real, she describes the pro-
cess through which she solicited and edited essays to be included in her
now heavily cited volume. She writes:
When I initially met with contributors, I told them I was editing an anthology
on feminism and female empowerment in the 90;s and asked if they had been
thinking about any topic or theme or experience that seemed appropriate. Gen-
erally, people offered almost generic experiences of being a woman in a sexist
society. When I explained further that I was looking for essays that explored
contradiction and ambiguity, that explored female empowerment from the
perspective of what in your life has been empowering for you - as opposed to
what has been disempowering, and irrespective of what it is supposed to be
empowering - then the small voices, the quiet, never-said-this-out-loud voices,
began to speak, (xxxvi, my emphasis)

Soliciting submissions for a proposed edited collection in 2004, We Want

It Now! Third Wave Manifestos, editor Elizabeth Berila sent the following
e-mail guidelines to would-be contributors:

Each manifesto - or rant - should clearly identify a specific political issue of

concern as well as your demands for change. We Want It Now! is intended
for a general audience as well as for the classroom and should therefore avoid
heavy academese or specialized language. We are interested in submissions
from students, activists, thinkers, artists, and academics. Manifestos may
be pragmatic, provocative, outrageous, serious, funny, fresh, or in-your-face.
Unafraid of contradictions, these third wave manifestos may embody several
of these qualities at once.

The call for papers then goes on to suggest possible topics and even pos-
sible titles for submitted pieces, including "How Come Feminists Give
Sex Work a Dirty Name?" and "FUCK! Manifesto: Radical Feminists for
a Future Under the Control of Kindness."

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Re-presenting Feminisms 139

Providing guidelines f
step in publishing an a
the aforementioned e
manuscripts. What I d
these particular editor
a coherent third wave feminism and to contrast this wave with all that
came before. The editors in the above two examples clearly approach their
projects with particular understandings of third wave feminism. Both are
looking for contradiction: Berila is clearly seeking nonacademic, personal
writing, and Walker is hoping for essays that challenge what is "supposed
to be empowering." The fact that Walker originally received essays that
reflected "almost generic experiences of being a woman in a sexist soci-
ety," and the fact that Berila (and I suspect other editors as well) feel it
necessary to emphasize that essays should take a particular form (ranting,
manifesto-like, no jargon) suggests to me that third wave feminism, and/
or younger women's feminism might be both more diverse and more simi-
lar to second wave feminism than these anthologies suggest.16 My point,
again, is not to minimize the importance of these anthologies, but rather
to encourage feminist scholars and activists to see these anthologies for
what they are: insightful, thought provoking, and empowering (to both
authors and readers) essays, that have no doubt fostered feminist debate
and feminist activism. They are not, however, representative of young
women's feminism in any generalizable sense.
Though third wave feminists' (ab)uses of erotic power, combined with
their critiques of perfection and their insistence on plurality have indeed
been the site of numerous controversies in contemporary American femi-
nism, controversy in itself does 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
"first wave" of feminism was marked by differences in whether women
should have the right to the vote, which women should have the right to
the vote, and how women should proceed in fighting for suffrage; and the
"second" wave was similarly marked by multiple controversies, including
the "sex wars," and theoretical debates between and among cultural, radi-
cal, liberal, and Marxist feminists (see for example Hirsch and Keller 1990
and Tong 1998). While debates concerning the (ab)uses of erotic power and
women's sexuality may be particularly divisive, it is misleading at best,
and damaging at worst, to force the complexity of this debate to map onto
a predetermined "wave" timeline. What do we risk when we lump "older"
feminists including Patricia Hill Collins, Iris Marion Young, Mary Daly,
Gayle Rubin, Catherine McKinnon, Gloria Anzaldua, and Adrienne Rich
into the "second wave"?
Having compared the wave rhetoric with the available quantitative and
qualitative data that speak to feminist differences, I want to suggest here

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 140 Catherine Harnois

that we may do b
constantly in pro
or age group. Giv
invoke an age gr
that none of thes
nist group, it ma
obfuscate than to
feminisms. While
size the connection between American feminism in the 1960s and 1970s
and the American movement for women's suffrage, as Marsha Lear (1968)
has suggested, reliance on this framework for understanding American
feminism undoubtedly contributed to the marginalization of continuous,
less publicized, struggles of working-class women and women of color
throughout the past centuries (Morgan 2003; Springer 2002).
Representing feminisms' past, present, and future as a series of waves
may help some to see connections between large-scale public feminist
movements of the past centuries, but lumping hundreds of thousands of
women under the term "second wave" and others under the label "third
wave" feminists certainly contributes to the homogenization within and
the erasure of similarities across these groups as well. Such labels might
be acceptable if, in fact, clear distinctions between these groups existed,
but the evidence reviewed here suggests just the opposite. Rather than
representing American feminism as three (semi- (distinct waves, however,
a more productive presentation of feminist history might emphasize
continuity over time, while simultaneously highlighting the constant
diversity of thought, movement, and actors at each historical moment. It
may be that future representations of American feminisms may be able
to recognize such continuity and diversity while simultaneously invoking
the third wave label, but this will require a drastic shift from the current
use of the wave rhetoric. A poststructuralist use of third wave identity will
require first and foremost a recognition that this identity category, and
those which it creates by means of opposing, "are never merely descrip-
tive, but always normative, and as such, exclusionary" (Butler 1995, 50).

Catherine E. Harnois is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Soci-

ology at Wake Forest University. Her research seeks to bridge feminist
theories and quantitative social research methods. Send correspondence
to harnoice@wfu.edu.

Notes

1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of

the American Sociological Association in August 2005 in Philadelphia,

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Re-presenting Feminisms 141

Pennsylvania. The autho

Barbara Risman, Karoly
Harrington for their he

2. Catherine Orr (1997)

multicultural group of
Third Wave: Feminist P

3. This theoretical appr

intertwined with the
litical context in which
politics for a particular
Piepmeier (2003), for
the influence of moder
postmodernism and "p
political strategies of y
cohort and theory base
era political body who
ideologies and praxes w
(1) They came to young
in a schizophrenic cultu
within feminism . . . an
postfeminism."

4. I do not directly inv

to understand waves o
however, that this appr
more problematic, com
undoubtedly contribute
frameworks that rely s
outside of the academy,
imply that academic co
feminist perspective.

5. As I argue in Harnoi
metaphor is that the w
global context.

6. See Aronson (2003) f

women's attitudes towa

7. In this study, the aver

those in the Baby-Boom
age for the Pre-Baby-Bo

8. The random sample

at least 300 women in
and >54.

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 142 Catherine Harnois

9. White is a dichotomous variable where self-identification as white=l and

nonwhite=0. Hispanic is a dichotomous variable where self -identification as
Hispanic=l and non-Hispanic=0. Black is a dichotomous variable where self
identification as black=l and nonblack=0. H.S. Education is a dichotomous
variable where having graduated from high school, but not having attended
college=l and having either more or less formal education=0. College graduate
is a dichotomous variable where having graduate from a college or university
is coded 1 and not having graduated from a college or university is coded 0.
Income is a seven category variable where higher value represents a higher
household income. Not currently working is a dichotomous variable wher
those not currently in the paid labor force are coded 1 and those currently work-
ing are coded 0. Working full time and Working part time are both dichotomou
variables coded in the same way. Child is a dichotomous variable where having
at least one child is coded 1 and not having had any children is coded 0. Single
and Divorced/Separated are both dichotomous variables where membership in
the specified category is coded 1 and non-membership is coded 0.

10. It should be emphasized that on average Third Wavers believed "a moderate
amount of change" was still needed in both of these areas.

11. This perceived demand for perfection is further complicated by the catch-22
that many young feminists find themselves presented with: on the one hand,
young feminist activists feel they are being pressured to follow in the footsteps
of older feminist generations, using similar strategies (perhaps because these
are the ones that the media is likely to recognize) to achieve similar goals,-
on the other hand, young feminists often find there is a shortage of space to
thrive in these positions, as older feminists occupy most of the top positions.
Two quotations capture this dynamic well: Third Wave feminist Madelyn
Detloff (1997, 78) writes, "I sense a reluctance on the part of second wavers
to pass the torch to the next generation of leaders/7 and Second Wave feminis
Robin Morgan (2003, 578) retaliates, " Speaking for myself, I'm hanging on to
my torch, thank you. Get your own damned torch/' to which Pollitt (2003,
311) agrees.

12. See also Payette (2002, 141).

13. Note that this use of " erotic power" is qualitatively different from Lorde's
(1984) use of "erotic power."

14. For similar sentiments, see also Findlen (1995) and Baumgardner and Richards
(2000).

15. It is important to mention that many third wave feminists note that there are
situations in which women believe themselves to be in control of the 'tools
of patriarchy' while they are "in fact" not in control. In other words, women's
and girls' beliefs that they are in control is not the most important criteria
for determining whether they are being exploited (Baumgardner and Richards
2000; Byrd 2004; Frank 2002).

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Re-presenting Feminisms 143

16. While all anthologies

gies that editors use t
strategies to that of
Power: From Africa to
ately. While Walker and
feminist writing, Nnae
of feminist perspectives
where contributors agre
to define African femin
an anthology that seem
Berila's appear to emerg

References

Aikau, Hokulani, Karla Erickson, and Jennifer L. Pierce, eds. 2005. "Making Trou-
ble for the Binary Between Second and Third Wave Feminism: Reconceptual-
izing 'Waves7 and 'Generations' in Feminist Theory." Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Austin, Paula. 2002a. "I learned from the Best." fane Sexes it Up: True Confes-
sions of Feminist Desires, ed. Merri Lisa Johnson, 91-106. New York: Four
Walls Eight Windows.

Women of Color on Today's Feminism, e

Rehman, 159-167. New York: Seal Press.
Bailey, Cathryn. 1997. "Making Waves and Dra
Vicissitudes of Feminism" Hypatia 12(3): 1
Baumgardner, Jennifer and Amy Richards
Feminism, and the Future. New York: Farra
Butler, Judith. 1994. "Contingent Foundati
'Postmodernism/" Feminist Contentions:
Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, and N. Frase
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist T
and the Politics of Empowerment. New York
Cortese, Janis. 1997. "The Third WWWave: Wh
Jan. 2008, from: http://www.3rdwwwave.co
Cox, Ana Marie, Freya Johnson, Annalee New
linity without Men: Women Reconciling Fem
Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doin
and Jennifer Drake, 178-206. Minneapolis: U
Davis, Angela Y. 1995. "Afterward." To Be R
ing the Face of Feminism, ed. Rebecca W
Books.
Dent, Gina. 1995. "Missionary Position." To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Chang-
ing the Face of Feminism, ed. Rebecca Walker, 61-75. New York: Anchor
Books.

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 144 Catherine Harnois

Detloff, Madelyn.
nist Generations
Dicker, Rory and A
for the 21st Cent
Drake, Jennifer. 1
Evans, Sarah M. 2
End. New York: Free Press.
Findlen, Barbara, ed. 1995. Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation.
Seattle: Seal Press.
Freeman, Jo. 1996. "Waves of Feminism." Retrieved 2005, from: http://www.
jofreeman.com/feminism/waves.htm.
Gallup Organization, ICR Survey Research Group, 1999, "Gallup/USA Today Poll
#9902007: Century of the Woman," hdl:1902.29/D-31402 http://id.thedata.org/
hdl%3A1902.29%2FD-31402 Odum Institute [distributor(DDI)].
Garrison, Ednie Kaeh. 2000. "U.S. Feminism-Grrrl Style! Youth (Sub)Cultures and
the Technologies of the Third Wave." Feminist Studies 26(1): 141-170.
Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. 2002. "Response from a 'Second Waver" to Kimberly
Springer's Third Wave Black Feminism?7" Signs 27(4): 1091-1094.
Haraway, Donna. 1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-
Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." Simians, Cyborgs, and Women:
The Reinvention of Nature, 149-181. New York: Routledge.
Harnois, Catherine E. 2005a. "Re-Presenting Feminisms: Past, Present, and
Future." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Harnois, Catherine E. 2005b. "Different Paths to Different Feminisms? Bridg-
ing Multiracial Feminist Theories with Quantitative Sociological Gender
Research." Gender and Society 19(6): 809-828.
Henry, Astrid. 2003. "Feminism's Family Problem: Feminist Generations and the
Mother-Daughter Trope." Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st
Century, ed. Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier.
Hernandez , Daisy and Bushra Rehman, eds. 2002. Colonize This!: Young Women
of Color on Today's Feminism. New York: Seal Press.
herrup, mocha jean. 1995. "Virtual Identity." To Be Real: Telling the Truth and
Changing the Face of Feminism, ed. Rebecca Walker, 239-252.
Heywood, Leslie and Jennifer Drake, eds. 1997. Third Wave Agenda: Being
Feminist, Doing Feminism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hirsch, Marianne and Evelyn Fox Keller, eds. 1990. Conflicts in Feminism. New
York: Routledge.
Huddy, Leonie, Francis K. Neely and Marilyn R. LaFay. 2000. "The Polls-
Trends Support for the Women's Movement." Public Opinion Quarterly 64:
309-350.
Johnson, Mern Lisa, ed. 2002. fane Sexes it Up: True Confessions Feminism
Desire. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Karlyn, Kathleen Rowe. 2003. "Scream, Popular Culture, and Feminism's Th
Wave: 'I'm Not My Mother."' Genders. Retrieved 2005, from: http://ww
genders.org/g38/g38_rowe_karlyn.html.
Kinser, Amber E. 2004. "Negotiating Spaces for/through Third Wave Feminism
NWSA Journal 16(3): 124-153.
Labaton, Vivien and Dawn Lundy Martin, eds. 2004. The Fire this Time. N
York: Anchor Books.

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Re-presenting Feminisms 145

Lear, Marsha. 1968. "Th

March 10: 24-25, 50-62.
Lorber, Judith. 1993. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Trumansberg, NY: The
Crossing Press.
Mann, S. A. and D. J. Huffman. 2005. "The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism
and the Rise of the Third Wave." Science and Society 69(1): 56-91.
Moraga, Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua, eds. 1981. This Bridge Called My Back:
Writings by Radical Women of Color. Watertown, MA: Persephone Press.
Morgan, Joan. 1999. When Chicken Heads Come Home to Roost: My Life as a
Hip-Hop Feminist. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Morgan, Robin, ed. 2003. Sisterhood Is Forever: The Women's Anthology for a New
Millenium. New York: Washington Square Press.
Nnaemeka, Obioma. 1998. "Introduction: Reading the Rainbow." Sisterhood,
Feminisms, and Power: From Africa to the Diaspora, ed. Obioma Nnaemeka,
1-35. Trenton. NT: Africa World Press.
Orr, Catherine M. 1997. "Charting the Currents of the Third Wave." Hypatia
12(3): 29-45.
Payette, Patricia. 2002. "The Feminist Wife?: Notes from a Political Engagement."
fane Sexes it Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire, ed. Merri Lisa Johnson,
139-170. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Peltola, Pia, Melissa Milkie and Stanley Presser. 2004 "The 'Feminist' Mystique."
Gender and Society 18:122-44.
Pollitt, Katha and Jennifer Baumgardner. 2003. "Afterword: A correspondence
between Katha Pollitt and Jennifer Baumgardner." Catching a Wave: Reclaim-
ing Feminism for the 21st Century, eds. Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier,
309-320. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Rasmusson, Sarah L. 2004. "Third Wave Feminism: History of a Social Move-
ment." Encyclopedia of American Social Movements, ed. Immanuel Ness,
429-435. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Schnittker, Jason, Jeremy Freese and Brian Powell. 2003. "Who Are Feminists and
What Do They Believe?" American Sociological Review 68(4): 607-622.
Schriefer, Amy. "We've Only Just Begun: Translating Third Wave Theory Into
Third Wave Activism." The Laughing Medusa. Retrieved 2004, from: www.
gwu . edu/~medusa/thirdwave . html .
Siegel, Deborah L. 1997a. "The Legacy of the Personal: Generating Theory in
Feminism's Third Wave." Hypatia 12(3):46-75.

feminist' Moment." Third Wave Agenda: Bei

eds. Leslie Haywood and Jennifer Drake, 55-
Minnesota Press.
Springer, Kimberly. 2002. "Third Wave Black Feminism?" Signs 27(4): 1059-10
Tong, Rosemarie Putnam. 1998. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehen
Introduction. Boulder, CO: West view.
Walker, Rebecca. 1995. To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the F
Feminism. New York: Anchor Books.
Webb, Veronica and Rebecca Walker. 1995. "How does a Supermodel do Femi-
nism" To Be Real, ed. Rebecca Walker, 209-218. New York: Anchor Books.
Whittier, Nancy. 1995. Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical
Women's Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

This content downloaded from

3.108.85.85 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:28:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms