There has been so much noise made by lady bloggers over this Ms. magazine cover which features Barack Obama ripping open his shirt a la superman to reveal a black t-shirt with the words "This is what a feminist looks like," emblazoned across it. I certainly don't think that some feminists are giving Obama enough credit when it comes to women's issues. Amy Siskind, who writes a blog for The Daily Beast (the word "so" links to it above), asserts that Ms. magazine (the spearhead feminist publication) is not "looking out for the women of this country." She clings to an image of Wonder Woman, who was pictured on the magazine's first issue accompanied by the words "Wonder Woman for president." In a related televised interview, Siskind states that if the magazine asked if Obama was the new face of Feminism, rather than insist it, there would be less of a problem (in the same interview she says that Sarah Palin would have been a better choice for the cover).
I really don't understand what Siskind's problem is. In her blog she hopes that "we take back the term "feminism" and restore its dignity and honor. It is time that we, our daughters, and granddaughters discover our inner Wonder Woman." And she bemoans the fact that national women's movements were attached to Democratic and pro-choice movements and therefore stigmatized by the right. "The movement had devolved and morphed into a clique instead. And this clique only allowed members with certain rites of entry: liberal Democratic women who were pro-choice," she says. According to Siskind, like-minded men were left out.
Siskind wants a fourth wave of Feminism, "a big tent movement that invites women and like-minded men of all political parties and views on reproductive rights. A women’s movement that stands up and speaks out for the women of this country when other groups will not. A women’s movement that keeps a watchful eye on its constituency and their needs." I agree, but I think the problem that she has with this cover betrays her true feelings. She's not willing to accept that a president Obama is a "like-minded man," who rigorously supports issues that most effect women. He has two daughters (though in the past, a politicians family hasn't effected their policy; Cheney's daughter certainly didn't) and a strong, educated wife who isn't afraid to tell him when he's wrong and talk over him (and has done so on television). Part of Obama's appeal is that he is a multi-cultural American (who doesn't support gay marriage, and that sucks) who was raised free of the yolk of tradition and blue-blood upbringing; his childhood was anything but elite. His experience is more symbolic of the American one than perhaps any president's in the past. He (symbolically, I haven't sipped the Kool Aid) is the proverbial melting pot (or salad bowl or whatever) personified. His campaign was a big tent movement.
Siskind is out of touch with the 25-35 demographic of females who don't identify with feminism, or do, but feel the need to explain themselves each time they use the word. In the comments of her blog, one reader writes,
"I think Amy Siskind has missed the point here, or at least, she has missed why I (and all of my educated, female, twenty-something friends) no longer wish to be called "feminists".
It is precisely because of older women who expect us to automatically support any female candidate for office (regardless of her shortcomings, or the qualities of her male opponents) and who find the idea of a man on the cover of Ms. Magazine inherently offensive, despite claiming to support a "big tent movement that invites women and like-minded men of all political parties and views on reproductive rights".
The trouble with the formal "movement" is that its proponents seem not to believe that change is actually possible, or at least, that change can only be forced. Those of us who grew up in the 90s know that, in fact, there are many, many enlightened men out there, who are ready to go to bat on women's issues as on anything else. Some of them are even worth voting for — or seeing on the cover of a magazine."
Well put, deva14.
What is especially infuriating about Siskind's argument, other than her vacillating logic, is that she parses semantics and word usage. How will we ever change any issues if the only discourse we have is over how to talk about those issues? Word usage is practically impossible to influence on purpose (note to Huckabee: I use the term "marry" when I pour the dregs of a ketchup bottle into another half-full ketchup bottle). The way definitions of words change or new ones get incorporated into use is almost viral. A term starts with a first use, in a paper or in an article or orally, and then someone else uses it, and then five more people, and soon "blog" and "podcast" are words. Dictionaries have been changing definitions and adding new words since their inception (don't get me started on prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries; only the latter ones matter in this country, anyway).
We are a culture of individuals now more than ever. The ready availability of information allows people to choose their beliefs a la carte. Movements, large ideological groups, are a thing of the past. Talking about how to talk about new ones is pointless. Feminism is, after all an -ism. It is hard and fast and holds with it things that will never change, like a religion. What Siskind wants is what is happening already, she just wants to call it Feminism, but nobody else seems to see the need to call it anything.
Feminist Naomi Wolf talked about this on CNN (she alsogot in a little jab about how the TV news media simpify debates and perpetuate narrow-vision). Here's the video, which includes a little bit of Siskind in that interview I mentioned earlier.
