[Editor's Note: Bryan Waterman, associate professor of English at NYU, joins us today to talk about, well, read it for yourself. Bryan was gracious enough to send along a bevy of links so that I could do some research and "make fun of [him].” To which I’d reply, friend, I’m not sure you understand the seriousness of this blog. And also: I do research at my day job. Anyway, Bryan’s first book, Republic of Intellect, is here. And he blogs, among other places, at a history of new york, where you can visit, if only virtually, Yonah Schimmel’s Knishery and experience some of the things about New York that are missing from your goyishe life in California’s Central Valley. Wait, did I say that out loud?
Thanks, Bryan, for doing this.]
On August 26, 1970, the fiftieth anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment, the notorious feminist author and activist Betty Friedan, out-going president of the four-year-old National Organization of Women, led tens of thousands of women in a march down Fifth Avenue toward Bryant Park, where, packed on the lawns behind the New York Public Library, the crowd heard addresses from Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and Kate Millett, among others.
The Women’s Strike for Equality, as it was billed, called on women to withhold their labor for a day as a way to protest unequal pay—roughly 60 cents to every dollar a man made at the time—though the march itself didn’t begin until after 5 pm in case potential marchers elected to stay on the job. Organizers also asked housewives to refuse work: “Don’t Cook Dinner—Starve a Rat Tonight,” a typical sign read. The Equality march even included some who were old enough to have paraded for women’s suffrage over a half century earlier, and some marchers demanded complete constitutional equality under the Equal Rights Amendment, which, once it passed the House in 1971 and the Senate in 1972, would spend the next decade being debated, ratified (and in some cases rescinded) by states, yet ultimately refused.
(August 26, 1970, also happens to have been the day I was born, across the continent in the rural Southwest, a world away from New York City and Women’s Lib alike. A few years later I would ride with other children on a July 4th parade float, dressed as a tree holding a stop sign that read: “STOP THE ERA!”
But I digress.)
The Times coverage seems by turns both excited by the prospect of the women’s movement and bewildered by the day’s spectacle, noting the support of state and national political figures for commemorative celebrations as well as the apparently surprising fact that the Bryant Park rally was uninterrupted by hecklers. The article also reports on oddball moments: for instance, a smaller crowd had gathered earlier in Duffy Square (Broadway between 46th and 47th), where one “Ms. Mary Ordovan, dressed in cassock and surplice as a ‘symbolic priest,’” consecrated the spot for a statue of Susan B. Anthony, which would replace the one of Father Francis Duffy, a WWI chaplain and Hell’s Kitchen reformer. Crossing herself, Ordovan called on the name of “The Mother, the Daughter, and the Holy Granddaughter. Ah-Women, Ah-Women.”
In a brief aside, the reporter then explains that “‘Ms.’ is used by women who object to the distinction between ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs.’ to denote marital status.” (Within a year Ms. magazine would be founded by Steinem.)
I first came across this Times article—which was itself my introduction to the history of the Women’s Strike for Equality—a decade ago when, as a grad student in American Studies, I had the chance, by an odd set of circumstances, to teach several semesters of U.S. Women’s History. The experience was rewarding and humbling for several reasons—not least because the classes often included one or two elderly women who spent their retirements as “evergreen” students, taking a class a semester in topics that interested them. Their presence initially made me somewhat uncomfortable once we’d reach the 1940s and I’d realize that from here on out some of my students had lived—as women—through the very history I had to lecture on, as a 28-year-old male.
But the courses were also made challenging by the advent of what was just then being called “post-feminism,” a fact that made me somewhat uncomfortable when I’d inevitably realize that a lot of my younger students thought they had no need for feminism in their own lives. To them the world as all a hold-hands-and-sing Coca Cola Christmas commercial; they thought gender inequality belonged to the past to distant cultures whose traditions, short of female circumcision and slavery, needed to be respected. When I asked them to recall Hillary Clinton’s controversial “stay home and bake cookies” moment during the 1992 campaign—after all, it had happened only five or six years earlier—they reminded me that they had been in middle school at the time; such things were as remote to them as playground bullies and kickball.
Only a quarter-century after the Women’s Strike for Equality, as we were routinely told in the late 1990s, the television series Ally McBeal had driven the last nails in the movement’s coffin. Remember that Time Magazine cover? Looking back, it also seems like a watershed moment when feminist studies in the academy gave way to cultural studies of feminism; rather than argue about what women had or hadn’t gained, how they’d done it, and when, we’d henceforth talk, for better or worse, about how feminists exploited or were exploited by celebrity culture and mass media. Was the Equality march really a landmark event in American women’s history? Or had Friedan’s media tactics simply ensured it would be remembered that way?
Either way, what those 50,000 women had done—their march spilling over from the police-approved single lane, filling the Avenue from curb to curb—seemed almost impossible to imagine, not so much because their feminism seemed outdated, but because so many younger women had become politically apathetic, appeased by a modest set of gains that masqueraded as equality. The media were full of stories about younger women who bought the line that feminism had done them wrong, powerful women who decided to quit their jobs, once they’d begun to reproduce, and give traditional stay-at-home motherhood a chance. And voila! We have contemporary Park Slope, Brooklyn, and its hordes of organic, free-range—but highly monitored—children.
At 3pm on August 26, 1970, according to the Times,
Sixty women jammed into the reception area of the Katherine Gibbs School, on the third floor of the Pan Am building at 200 Park Avenue, to confront Alan L. Baker, president of the secretarial school, with their charges that the school was ‘fortifying’ and ‘exploiting’ a system that kept women in subservient roles in business. Mr. Baker said he would ‘take a good look’ at the question.
About 10 members of NOW, starting at 9 A.M. and continuing on into the afternoon, visited six firms, business and advertising agencies, to present mocking awards for allegedly degrading images of women and for underemploying women.
Among the businesses they visited, the article concludes somewhat dryly, was the New York Times itself. Who knew that NOW anticipated Michael Moore by all those years? Too bad they hadn’t taken more cameras with them.
Betty Friedan, the “mother of modern feminism,” died in 2006 on her 85th birthday; her landmark 1963 book The Feminine Mystique, reductively credited with jump-starting the movement, is now generally considered quaint—even offensive in places—if surprisingly compelling.
Gloria Steinem, on whom I developed a mad, Harold-and-Maude style crush on hearing her speak in the early 90s, is now in her 75th year; during the recent primary season she endorsed Clinton and wrote in a Times op-ed that gender, rather than race, remained the bigger obstacle to equality in American life.
Bella Abzug wore big hats and talked refreshingly brash talk until she died in 1998; I hope she was spared the debate about Ally McBeal’s impact on the movement.
Kate Millett, who in 1970 had just published her excoriating if wooden Columbia Ph.D. dissertation as Sexual Politics (the only really exciting parts are the summaries and quotations from dirty, sexist books) survived years of troubled relations with media outlets and, more recently, Bowery developers; though her Christmas tree farm has gone the way of her downtown loft, she continues to run an upstate artist’s colony for women at age 74.
Can anyone name four feminist leaders of their stature—or even their celebrity—today? If not, whose fault is it?


39 comments
August 26, 2008 at 5:16 am
Matt W
The media were full of stories about younger women who bought the line that feminism had done them wrong, powerful women who decided to quit their jobs, once they’d begun to reproduce, and give traditional stay-at-home motherhood a chance.
Worth nothing that these stories about the “opt-out revolution” were, um, highly anecdotal.
August 26, 2008 at 5:36 am
Vance Maverick
It made you “somewhat uncomfortable” to teach older women this history, and also “somewhat uncomfortable” to teach younger women….either this reflects the discomfort/disappointment of your view of the history, or you weren’t quite comfortable as a teacher yet.
It’s true that the “opt-out revolution” (thanks, Matt, for reminding me of the phrase) was imaginary. But the slowing of change was not.
August 26, 2008 at 5:42 am
lt
Thanks for writing about this event. I’d say, though, that the question about leaders is the wrong one, just as it is when people ask it about the civil rights movement. Leaders of movements tend to be derided and then revered in their old age or after their death. Then they are revered and people wonder why they don’t make them like that anymore.
The antifeminism of the young has been overstated. Outside areas where the Christian right is dominant, young people overwhelming beleive young women should persue higher education and careers, financial independence, and have a degree of equality in their personal relationships with men that was unheared of before the second-wave movmenet. Yes, many don’t like the term feminist, but better to have the principles and not the name than the other way around. To loose sight of this because of stupid Newsweek covers is really to miss the point.
August 26, 2008 at 5:55 am
bw
either this reflects the discomfort/disappointment of your view of the history, or you weren’t quite comfortable as a teacher yet.
Well, at that point in time I was still lying about my age to my students — to make myself a couple years older — so you’re probably right.
I loved teaching that class. The discomfort probably also arose from the fact that my own feminism was inseparable from the identity politics of the moment it formed. Teaching this class (and also “Intro to Women’s Studies,” which I taught two or three times) always began with a disclaimer about being a guy teaching women’s studies.
August 26, 2008 at 6:01 am
bw
the question about leaders is the wrong one
Point taken. Several other points you make too. I agree that the “opt-out revolution” is overstated and anecdotal — and that more young people are feminists than self-identify as such. But I also worry about the interests being served by “news” stories about the end of feminism, the opt-out revolution, etc. The link Matt provides is a good one.
August 26, 2008 at 7:27 am
zunguzungu
Nice post. When you ask, somewhat rhetorically, about “feminist leaders of their stature,” it’s an interesting and valid point, but the sea change in media coverage that your piece also demonstrates seems like a pretty good explanation. I mean, Times’ own transformation from “excited by the prospect of the women’s movement” to “Feminism is dead” seems like a pretty significant shift in the way “feminism” as a term is popularly received, and as LT pointed out, people can be uncomfortable with that term (having been conditioned to reject it) without being at all hostile to the ideas it represents. I wonder, in other words, if the perceived lack of leaders isn’t still an interesting question–though I think LT is right on–but a different question, far more about shifts in attitudes within the popular media than being objectively about feminists out there in the real world.
The PUMA phenomenon, by the way, seems like a particularly apt illustration. No matter who chose that acronym, the way the “angry older female Clinton voter” meme is getting passed around the media right now, especially coupled with an acronym suggesting the “cougar” stereotype, seems strikingly anti-feminist to me. And it’s fascinating that so many of the PUMA people are themselves quite happy with that narrative (though I’m not convinced they’re as large and representative body as the coverage makes them seem, or perhaps just hopeful)
August 26, 2008 at 7:38 am
dana
so many younger women had become politically apathetic, appeased by a modest set of gains that masqueraded as equality. The media were full of stories about younger women who bought the line that feminism had done them wrong, powerful women who decided to quit their jobs, once they’d begun to reproduce, and give traditional stay-at-home motherhood a chance.
This is a really great post, but I have a couple of thoughts.
1) Most of the stories turned out to be misinterpreted, and there was a rally on one campus (I think it was at Yale) where one of the women interviewed explained how badly she’d been misquoted.
2) I know it’s fashionable to blame the decline of feminism on the apathy of younger women, but I’d make a couple of points:
a) If you talk to an older professional woman, and hear the absolute nonsense she had to put up with, 2008 does look like we’ve made extraordinary gains. E.g., a female Ph.D. student who was not permitted to enter the male-only library, so she had to have her books handed to her across the threshold of the facility. Feminism has succeeded wildly in making that past look like not just another country, but one you’d need a special visa to enter. And it’s often the older women who are resisting newer changes, because they’ve come so far. (Hey, you can get in the library now, why do you need child care to do your job? I didn’t. You get the idea.)
b) I’m hardly an expert on the history of feminism, but one idea that resonated was that it was about ‘choice.’ Combine that with a corporate America that was very receptive to the parts of feminism that increased their potential work force but not very receptive to anything else, and the choice of working for a few years and then quitting to have kids looks like as valid a choice as any.
c) Not every career is an upper middle class, wildly fulfilling profession. (Not even all upper middle class careers are that fulfilling.) The choice isn’t usually between being a fantastic NYC lawyer and a stay-at-home-mom, and the discussion is often framed that way.
I’m at an age where a lot of my friends are dropping out. Most of them are dropping out from a combination of desire and cost. They’re not all surgeons and attorneys, so they’re not giving up a large income. And they’re not working-class and in a position where they need two incomes. With reputable child care costing $20K a year, the calculus is looking like this: Hmm, I could stay at home with the cute baby and we’d lose my income, or I could go back to my mind numbing job, not see the cute baby, and pay $20K. Hmmmm.
Now, of course this isn’t the end of the story. It’s a good question why none of the dads are dropping out. It’s a very good question if the women would drop out if part of the calculus wasn’t ‘… and I’m not going to get ahead at this point anyway…’ But so often the discussion is pitched at high-end professionals, and I’d really like to see that change. It’s hard to convince a younger woman that feminism is relevant to her when she’s working in a boring office job and it’s assuming her options were Harvard Law.
3) Feminism got a really bad rap. Feminazi, baby-killing, hairy-legged, etc. The reason young women don’t identify as feminist is not because of a failing with them, but because from the time they were born the word’s been the target of a smear campaign.
August 26, 2008 at 7:42 am
dana
Uh, sorry for the post-sized comment.
August 26, 2008 at 7:48 am
bw
It’s a good question why none of the dads are dropping out.
Some are, here and there, of course. But your point is one that’s bugged me for a long time too. I had my kids too young (during grad school) for either of us to think seriously about opting out, and so I get slightly annoyed not only by media about the opt-out revolution but by some people I meet who take comfort in those stories and use them to beat other parents over the head. (The “I’m morally superior because I opted out” crowd.)
But nothing bugs me more than opt-outers whose husbands seem incapable of comforting a crying child or changing a diaper.
I didn’t mean to suggest real gains hadn’t been made since 1970; it just irks me at times when the fashionable aversion to feminism (in the name of moving past identity politics) seems like an obvious cover for maintaining the status quo.
August 26, 2008 at 7:49 am
bw
But nothing bugs me more than opt-outers whose husbands seem incapable of comforting a crying child or changing a diaper.
The syntax is misleading. The husbands bother me more than the opt-outers themselves.
August 26, 2008 at 8:09 am
dana
The “I’m morally superior because I opted out” crowd.
That bugs me, too. Anecdotally, it’s a response of new moms who are feeling a little… guilty’s the wrong word, but it’s like that.. over having opted out. Maybe defensive, like they have to prove they’re still intelligent beings, or worried that their friends will think badly of them unless they’re not at stay-at-home-mom, but The Mom, who is re-inventing childrearing. It seems to be in response to feminism, in a way. Being a mom has to be a career choice, not just something that happened.
August 26, 2008 at 8:45 am
kid bitzer
“The reason young women don’t identify as feminist is not because of a failing with them, but because from the time they were born the word’s been the target of a smear campaign.”
this is important. as with the history of race in america, you can take the media’s stance and say ‘isn’t is strange that progress comes and goes? isn’t it fun to watch feminism as a fad and then say it has peaked?’
or you can look at the kkk, the reactionaries, the dead-enders who fight deadly serious insurgencies to try to kill off social movements that they hate.
the media is really good at helping the insurgency stay invisible, or at giving visibility to the false-flag operations (the phyllis schlaflies).
August 26, 2008 at 9:25 am
washerdreyer
I’ve previously revealed myself as some kind of ratification nut, and so perhaps unsurprisingly spent a little while this morning wondering what exactly happened to the 19th Amendment on 8/26/20. Turns out I should have just checked Wikipedia (to find the name Bainbridge Colby), and then would have found the History Channel’s version of tdih telling me that it’s when Tennessee’s crucial ratification was delivered to D.C. and Secretary of State Colby signed a proclamation (.pdf link) certifying ratification.
August 26, 2008 at 10:10 am
kid bitzer
“I’ve previously revealed myself as some kind of ratification nut”
no, no: you’ve previously revealed yourself as some kind of nut,
and this just ratifies it.
August 26, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Jason B
Hey, happy birthday.
August 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm
rebecca
Thank you Ari for this post- I love reading your stuff. I can think of many self-identified feminists paving the way for younger generations. Rebecca Traister (from Salon.com), Jessica Valenti (from feministing.com), Katha Pollitt (I realize she is not “young” persay, but damn, everything I read of hers gives me shivers), Ariel Levy (Female Chauvinist Pigs) and your very own BitchPh.D. Obviously we’re not talking the same sort of rallying scale that brought thousands of women out to demonstrate, but truthfully, I don’t think that’s the mindset anymore. These bloggers, these writers, these activists, are keeping that mindset alive and well in the public sphere and they’re doing it with quite a following. Not with the same amount of accolade that Steinem gets possibly, but she’s like the Bob Dylan of feminists- legendary props are due.
We keep talking about how feminists don’t identify as such, and many commentators have noted that even non-identifying feminists agree with concepts such as “equal pay” and “equal opportunity” while maintaining their distance from feminism. I think that it’s true to a certain extent that our society has mainstreamed “feminist” concepts, but I would argue that many of those concepts have less of a basis in feminism and more in civil rights (which feminism is just a part of). What feminism can call its own is the concept that women have been marginalized by men (and by women) and that this marginalization deserves note and recognition in history, in analysis, in social and cultural studies, in politics, etc. THIS is, I think what makes people uncomfortable. If feminism were just pretty words about “choice” and “equality” I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be a smear campaign against it. It’s the frustrating and sometimes anger-inducing knowledge that up until today and probably long into tomorrow, women are still trying to make it in a man’s world. In my opinion, people who are feminists are people who acknowledge that fact.
August 26, 2008 at 1:27 pm
rebecca
Oh, and happy birthday! :)
August 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm
washerdreyer
I meant to put a link to this post in the phrase “ratification nut,” but I’m glad I didn’t as there’s a risk it would have ruined KB’s joke.
August 26, 2008 at 3:08 pm
ari
Although the post appears under my name, rebecca, the actual author is Bryan Waterman (you can check the intro. for more info. on him). Also, it’s his birthday. Mine will be later this year. I’ll be sending out a text message to remind people.
August 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm
rebecca
Mon dieu! My bad.
August 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm
ari
Not a big deal. Just adjust the present you buy me accordingly and all will be forgiven.
August 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm
ac
I’ve realized that one thing that bothers me about contemporary feminist criticism is that current feminists often borrow the language of the 1970s, particularly language critical of other women, without borrowing the sense of context, or making any correction for it. All the critiques of femininity of 1970 were happening in the midst of a far more intense critique of masculinity, in which rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment were dominant, and discussed on a par with, say, war crimes.
Now one reason we don’t talk that way anymore is that the context of violence and open harassment has, thankfully, changed a lot. As Dana notes above, the past seems another country, in this sense. But I don’t think our language for discussing the problems we still do have has caught up. The result is that the language we have for discrimination and the critique of masculinity is somewhat outdated (the problems now being more subtle), whereas the critique of femininity remains relatively strong. And this creates distortions in how we conceive of these issues, and how we talk about them.
The media narratives discussed above reflect this, I think. As I pointed out, an economic story of women being affected in large numbers by a recession and a weak recovery becomes a story of self-glorification or self-sabotage on their part. When actually it’s an instance of women behaving like the other people in the labor market—men. (Men drop out in large numbers too; in their case it’s just called the end of unemployment benefits.)
And that’s actually one of the big problems with the relative strengths of these discourses: the pursuit of gender neutrality, and the recognition that women behave a lot like men do, actually cuts against the critique of femininity.
August 26, 2008 at 3:31 pm
bitchphd
Can anyone name four feminist leaders of their stature—or even their celebrity—today?
AHEM.
August 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm
bitchphd
Aw, Rachel remembers me.
August 26, 2008 at 3:40 pm
dana
As I pointed out, an economic story of women being affected in large numbers by a recession and a weak recovery becomes a story of self-glorification or self-sabotage on their part.
Your article was one of the smartest things I read all week. Especially because it also provides a good explanation for why it seems like the dropout narrative is anecdotally as strong as it is. If Sandy loses her job, and her husband doesn’t, and they’ve been thinking about it kids, it’s easy to make lemons out of lemonade, but it doesn’t say much about what Sandy would have done w.r.t. her career had she been promoted or confident a new job was around the corner.
Can anyone name four feminist leaders of their stature—or even their celebrity—today?
I love you, B, but yer gonna need Bill Donowhore to denounce you more than once to get Steinem’s celebrity status. More balloon animal denunciations!
August 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm
bitchphd
No shit, especially since the NWPC wouldn’t even let me in the door. Hmph.
August 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm
bw
Best birthday present so far: being mistaken for Ari. Woo-hoo!
Night’s still young though, even if I’m now officially in my mid-to-late 30s.
August 26, 2008 at 3:49 pm
rebecca
Bitch, props to you have duly been made, despite the fact that the rest of my post was based on me making an ass of myself. (New motto: read the italicized stuff from now on) :)
Ari, now your present is 3x as cool as it was when I first posted my ramblings. (In that, I will now say happy faux birthday three times in a row- happyfauxbirthdayhappyfauxbirthdayhappyfauxbirthday)
AC- I’m not sure I understand the critique you are making, possibly because I do not know what language you are referencing. Can you clarify? I do not think it is culturally irrelevant to challenge women’s responses to feminism today. There are definitely women now, as back in the 1970’s, who do not feel that women are subject to a paternalistic society, or if they do believe that, believe that that is the way it SHOULD be. If that is not what you are getting at, I am afraid I am lost. I also am not certain I agree with you when you state that the “context of violence and open harassment has changed a lot.” As someone who has worked with domestic and sexual violence victims, I would say that the numbers have remained largely the same, and that sexual harassment is still an enormous issue (if not solely in this country, then definitely elsewhere: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/08/06/russia/)
What needs updating?
August 26, 2008 at 3:52 pm
rebecca
And, finally, before I run back to my corner and hide in embarassment, happy birthday bw and your post was excellent. Ari-rific? Is that better?
August 26, 2008 at 3:53 pm
dana
Bryaniffic, maybe.
August 26, 2008 at 3:54 pm
dana
No shit, especially since the NWPC wouldn’t even let me in the door.
Sad-face. Enjoying your liveblogging, btw.
August 26, 2008 at 3:58 pm
bitchphd
Thank you for saying that. I am fearing that it sucks.
August 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm
bw
Woo-hoo! Second favorite present: an adjective in my name!
BTW, thanks, Rebecca, for a list of names I should have known better. When Michelle O positioned her story last night vis-a-via 1920 and 1963, though, she put herself in my top 4.
August 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm
dana
Nah, it’s good! I am thinking with all the running around you guys have to do to keep your credentials, you should have had a pledge drive for Keens or Dansko clogs.
August 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm
ac
Rebecca, basically I mean that you can work in an office in which no one’s overtly sexually harassing you and still be discriminated against. I’m not sure that we understand the mechanisms of more subtle forms of discrimination so well—and given that they’re more amorphous than certain other clear cut situations, may have a tendency to ascribe whatever problems a woman is experiencing to self-sabotage, just because the literature on that is more extensive. I’ve just run into this kind of thinking a lot.
August 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm
dana
And, if I’m understanding ac correctly, the language problem would come in with using a term that used to mean something like ‘not permitted in the library because of all the boys’ to mean something like ‘has less access to one’s adviser because the guys can take him out to lunch more easily than you can.’ The latter is a lot hard to explain succinctly, even though the problem exists.
August 26, 2008 at 7:31 pm
ac
Right. That too.
August 26, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Bave Dee
Happy birthday, bw!
B, you will one day be even more famous than you already are. These things are a bit random, but you’ve already got Donohue.
August 27, 2008 at 11:30 am
Artemis
‘has less access to one’s adviser because the guys can take him out to lunch more easily than you can.’ The latter is a lot hard to explain succinctly, even though the problem exists.
Hear, hear! My dept. has a Women’s Caucus and everything, but we’ve never done anything beyond arranging pot-lucks, discussing work-life balance (not so unimportant, really), and learning about the correct attire for interviews. I wish we were better equipped to talk about this kind of access, esp. as it’s influenced by race and class in my grad program.