The redefinition of feminism and the many prefixes that get attached to it, upsets Kellie Bean, an associate professor of English at Marshall University. She is particularly offended by and worried about “girly feminism.”
“Girlies have run away from 60s radicalism by heading back to beauty,” said Bean at the Modern Language Association’s annual conference. Holding up the editor of Lucky magazine and her quote about finding the perfect kitten heels as her modern feminist activity and writer Christina Hoff Sommers as examples of girlies who are hurting the feminist cause, Bean expressed disgust to the packed crowd.
While there may be something to Bean’s point, that girlies are not “real” feminists and have no business co-opting the term, she needs a little help with her facts. Bean brought up Sommers quote that gender feminism (presumably the only valid kind in Bean’s mind) simply, “does not suit me” then proceeded to talk about Sommers as if she labels herself a girly feminist and spends all her free time at the mall. But the truth about Sommers and her feminist persuasion is very different from the portrait painted by Bean at the panel on “Humanities and the F Word: Women and the MLA.”
“I consider myself a mainstream equity feminist. And I believe most American women subscribe philosophically to the classical, first-wave kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education. A first-wave mainstream or equity feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, no discrimination,” wrote philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers in both her speech, “Who Stole Feminism?” and in her book of the same title. Sommers defines herself as such a feminist because she does not agree with women who view all of life as a constant sexual-political struggle through the lens of sex-gender feminism. For Bean to lump Sommers in with the girlies denigrates her serious work, which does not include chapters on makeup, high heels or how to entice men, and it hurts Bean’s cause because it is inaccurate.
Bean did explain that she has a problem with all these new labels of second- and third-wave feminism, equity feminism, girly feminism and others saying, “My concern is not that all women be activists, but I wish those doing the opposite would stop calling themselves feminists.”
At the MLA’s annual convention in Washington, D.C., this panel discussed the problems of redefining feminism, feminist activism in the third world, the connections between feminist theory and community involvement, and overworked women in academia.
In contrast to Bean, Sharon P. Doetsch of UC Santa Barbara is not concerned with the words used to describe feminism. In “Feminisms Becoming: Connecting Visions, Struggles and Theories in Feminist Activism since 1990,” Doetsch spoke of her observations concerning feminist activism in the social justice movement. She found that people working in issue-oriented groups did not use the language academic feminists use. “We need to be willing to let go of the language of feminism to cooperate with grassroots efforts,” said Doetsch, adding that adaptation to the constituents’ language will help foster the necessary dialogue for action.
Nina Y. Morgan of Kennesaw State University gave a presentation on feminist activism in the third world. “Where have all the feminists gone?” asked Morgan as she began speaking, but she answered her own question as she spoke of third world feminism. Because of the reality of feminist activism in the third world, “women are poised inside and along the edges of a new world order,” said Morgan. During the question and answer period she condemned the trafficking of women for sex and menial labor as well as child pornography, two issues she feels feminist activists must try to end.
Carlow University’s Katie J. Hogan talked about a different issue than the other panelists, presenting “Superserviceable Feminism.” In it she talked about service work within academia and how women are doing more of the work for no benefits. All Americans are overworked because capitalism encourages harder and more work, creating more work hours for everyone, but within academia women are expected to do more of the service than men are, said Hogan. “There is a danger for these women in providing service because it has no exchange value [does not count toward promotion, tenure or pay],” she said. Then Hogan offered a solution to academia, “We need to change the way we conceive of service work and the way we reward it.”
Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.
