Feminism is not the Story of My Life

by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese

Stating that contemporary feminists have pursued high-profile political causes at the cost of everyday women's problems, a study based on polls and interviews calls for a refocusing of feminist concerns. Tour.

Genres: Feminism

275 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Elizabeth Ann Fox-Genovese (May 28, 1941 – January 2, 2007) was an American historian best known for her works on women and society in the Antebellum South. A Marxist early on in her career, she later converted to Roman Catholicism and became a primary voice of the conservative women's movement. She was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2003.

Reviews

[Paige · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zero stars. That's right, zero!!!

I guess I can start with why I checked this book out from the library in the first place: I thought this offering by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese was going to be about intersectional feminism. L O L ! This passage is as close as it comes: "Both groups talk as if sexual freedom means the same thing for women of different classes, races, and ethnic groups--as if all women are vulnerable to the same kinds of abuse and as if all could afford the same sexual risks" (page 64). I could have done with a lot more in that vein. But that is one of the only instances (and the only noteworthy one) of such points I found in this book. Contrastingly, later she says, "Contrary to stereotype, it is especially striking that black and Hispanic men, who are more likely to be unemployed than white men, claim to care even more about working" (p 122). Yes, how especially striking that racist stereotypes are wrong! I am just plum shocked! I also notice her use of the more dubious "claim" in place of a more neutral "state" or "said." More benignly, in other instances, the author says, "for reasons that need not concern us here, African American women xyz..." and such things. To which I say: LET it concern us here! This is, after all, a book about how "feminists" have "lost touch," and I would think that to learn more about any given person or group's situation would help to counteract that.

So that's why I picked the book up. I figured out pretty quickly that I wasn't going to get what I was looking for, but I continued because she made some interesting points. Its subtitle was intriguing to me--"How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch With the Real Concerns of Women"--because although I do consider myself a feminist, I recognize that many people in the movement and even the movement itself in some cases can and should rightfully be criticized on many fronts, mostly for being exclusionary (from what I've seen/had experience with: practicing racism, transphobia, cissexism, gender essentialism, body shaming, etc--although there may be other accurate criticisms that I am as of yet unaware). So, the subtitle: that would be a story well worth hearing. However this book does not cover that. It lists a couple of instances where "feminism" has "lost touch" (although these instances listed were more like how feminism has been twisted and sensationalized by the media, which has its own agenda), but that's not the majority of the book. The first chapter is all about clothes and aren't clothes great and isn't shopping what really bonds females together and EVERY SINGLE TIME a woman wears clothes or goes out in public she's costuming. But men aren't. For some reason. Which she doesn't explain. I mean, costuming is a really interesting subject, as is portrayal of self, creation and expression of personality, artifacts, etc etc. But to just be like, "For WOMEN, costuming is INESCAPABLE" and not really examine it further seems irresponsible. She may have a point (or have had more of one 20 years ago when this was written), but it just didn't resonate with me at all. Still, though, I read on, thinking that maybe this book would get a 2 star rating. So when did she lose it?

Well, friends, I can tell you that the second I saw "Katie Roiphe" on the page, followed by "her basic point deserves serious attention," I knew we were headed for choppy waters. For those not familiar with Roiphe's point, here Ms. F-G lays it out: "The demand that the 'authorities' protect women from men carries the depressing suggestion that independent, 'liberated' women are not capable of taking care of themselves--or capable of showing the prudence to steer clear of the most dangerous situations" (p 164). Just so we're clear, this is what she's saying: everyone can use the police--men who have been assaulted late at night on bike trails, people whose cars have been stolen, homicide victims, women who can't find their Peet's gift certificate (saw this in the blotter), victims of drunk drivers, victims of identity theft, people who see stray dogs--all these people can turn to the police without having their independence called into question EXCEPT for women who have been raped. The way that she phrases this is just so offensive to me. Also bothersome is the way she frames the issue as "protect women from men," instead of the actual "protect the public from rapists." Not content just leaving it there, she continues on the next page, "How could this intelligent young woman not understand that there were likely to be consequences if she exercised her right [to say no] by engaging in heavy petting with a young man, going to his room, removing her clothes, initiating sexual foreplay, and then just saying no? I could not help thinking that it would be more prudent if she said no before taking off all of her clothes" (p. 165). Honestly, it doesn't MATTER what YOU think would be "more prudent," because no is no and forcing yourself on an unwilling partner is rape. I am all about being as clear and intentional as possible when it comes to sexual conduct; setting limits beforehand and stating what your boundaries are at the beginning is something I advocate for; things are a lot smoother and easier to handle that way for everyone. But doing that is not going to prevent a person from getting raped if someone decided to rape them. Rape isn't about getting laid or sexual desire, it's about control and power.

This brings me to another point the author repeated a few times which annoyed me greatly--she contends that "sexual violence" is the result of "sexual liberation"/"sexual freedom." I really don't know what agenda she's pushing with this one because if her own research is to be believed, she should know that it's just Not True: she says that rape and sexual harassment have always been around and even experts don't know if it's the occurrence or reporting of rape that has actually increased. So why then does she conflate "sexual violence" with "sexual freedom"? She says things like "the most ominous manifestations of sexual freedom walk the streets and prey upon women and children" (p 102)? Why does she make it sound as if we only have to put up with and hear about sexual violence NOW, only AFTER the sexual revolution? As if the sexual revolution created sex predators out of thin air? A world where people live in fear of sexual violence (a world that objectifies and commodifies women & their bodies, a world where rape culture is the norm, a world where even women's studies professors like the author think that it's unrealistic to not expect consequences for saying no to sex, a world where women get harassed on the street merely for existing) is not, for me, a world that contains meaningful sexual freedom or liberation.

Which leads me to this: I don't even know what the author means when she says "sexual freedom." And then she relies on opinion polls, without telling us the wording of the questions or numbers of responses, to make sweeping generalization about how "Americans" feel about "sexual liberation." I don't even know what she means by sexual liberation. I have an inkling that to the author "sexual freedom" merely means "women can have premarital sex without being shamed forevermore," but I'm not sure because she's really unclear about it. She is really unclear about other terms too, especially "morality," which she loves to throw around. On a single random page, I counted the word "moral" (or some derivation: "morally," "morality") six times. But she never tells us what "morality" means for the purpose of this discussion. She just says things like, "Since the sexual revolution Americans no longer see sex as a moral issue." Well...I don't think premarital sex (or promiscuity, which she painstakingly differentiates from premarital sex) makes anyone "bad," but I do think sex (and everything else that touches human conduct for that matter) do have to do with morality. My box fan has something to do with morality, inasmuch as if I take the cover off and push someone's face in it while it's running that would be hurtful and wrong. What does she mean by the words "moral" and "sexual freedom"/"sexual liberation"? I have no idea because: a) her use of it and my use of it don't match up and b) she doesn't give a definition of either. Meanwhile, she DOES give a definition of the word "luck" on page 152. So...in case you can't figure out what luck is, maybe pick up this book or something.

Anyway my enthusiasm for giving a scathing review of this book is waning, having gotten out my main complaints. The author does write in an engaging enough way and at first I was interested in what she said. I can handle, enjoy, and learn from reading viewpoints that differ from my own, and I did like some of what she had to say (in the three big Post-it notes I covered front and back with page numbers, there are a COUPLE with stars next to them indicating that they are praise rather than complaint) but in my eyes nothing can redeem this book from the rape apologism mentioned above. Even at best it was sloppy and unclear. It practiced gender essentialism by saying "women this, men that" without any kind of qualifiers and without making any mention of the impact of culture on learned and gendered behaviors. In fact she says at one point, she says of the "asymmetry between women and men": "How it arose and whether it is good or bad ... matter little or not at all" (p. 159). I vehemently disagree. If the "asymmetry" IS harmful, if people ARE suffering because of it, and if we have found out that it IS a product of social and cultural learning, that means that we can undo it; that it's changeable, it's not an immutable fact of nature. By merely shifting our attitudes we can affect a healthy, beneficial, and productive change in people's lives. I'm confused as to why that matters "little or not at all"?

In conclusion: mostly garbage with gusts of putrefaction.

[Becky Fowler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Puts the "mommy wars" in different light. Should women want to be married and stay home with children or should women want to work? Fox-Genovese argues that most women fall somewhere in between and that the arguments waged between poles (which she sets as political conservatives vs. the "feminist movement") don't really take into account the realities of combining work and motherhood.



She makes a good point that the political platform favored by feminist organizations are tailored to upper-income, educated women and don't really address the needs of poor women who work -- or women who would prefer to actually stay home and mother when their children are very young but cannot afford to do so. Instead of a primary focus on abortion rights, she would like to see feminists focus on the needs of mothers who need better options.



I don't agree with all of her assertions, but her conclusions are reasonable -- she suggests tax credits for families where a parent stays home with children, more investment in Head Start and other childcare/early education programs. She would like to see programs that give women more options and incentives for employers to allow at least a year of maternity leave for new mothers.

[Ferol · Rating 1 out of 5]

Holy hell, this book pissed me off so much I thought I'd end up burning it. States that feminists have lost touch with reality, essentially. I think the author is out of touch with reality - and perhaps humanity.

Her thesis is that the reason the feminist movement in the US has not been able to achieve really any their goals since roughly the mid-70s is that the ideals and mores of feminism do not connect with the lives of average, everyday women across all socio-economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. (WHOA world's longest sentence.)

That, I don't have a problem with. It's a reasonable enough point, I suppose - even though I don't agree.

She seems to think that a oman can't call herself a feminist if she is pro-life, with which I STRIDENTLY disagree. Feminism is about WAY MORE than a single issue. Also, on the whole abortion note - at one point she suggests that a twenty day gestational age fetus, that's right folks - TWENTY DAYS - could survive an abortion. Now, I'm no expert surely, but a twenty day gestational age fetus (LESS THAN A MONTH!) I'm pretty sure is just a very very very very very small lump of tissue with like - pehaps the beginnings of two organ systems (neuro and circ, if I remember correctly). She's just outright wrong about that.

She talks a lot about what I refer to as "I'm not a feminist, but" 's. For instance, you often hear women say things like "I'm not a feminist, but I believe women earning $.77 for every dollar a man earns is crap." She seems to think that because women aren't idendifying themselves as feminists, that they really AREN'T feminists. Well, frankly - just because you aren't using the specific word doesn't mean you aren't one.

Also on a research/social science note, she relies HEAVILY on opinion polls - Gallup polls. First of all, opinion polls are rarely an accurate gage of actual behavior. Second, in order for me to trust the survey data, I'd have to actually see the questions that they used - so much depends on the wording. Last - most importantly - the book was written in 1996. I'm not exaggerating here - so far, the latest poll data she is using is from 1984. I'm sorry, but TWELVE YEAR OLD DATA on OPINION POLLS? I call some SERIOUS data manipulation bullshit there - why not use more recent data? Because it didn't prove her point. BAH!

She also at one point suggests that shopping is a very good way for women to bond, and that girls who wear short skirts are asking for it. She keeps saying that young women should be responsibile for their own sexuality by not inviting danger by wearing revealing clothings. Um, how about teaching YOUNG MEN to calm the fuck down too there, skippy?

[Steven H · Rating 1 out of 5]

A FORMER WOMEN’S STUDIES DIRECTOR NOW HAS A MUCH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (1941-2007) was a historian who taught at several institutions. Once a feminist (she began the first doctoral program in Women’s Studies in the U.S. at Emory University), she converted to Catholicism in 1995, and became a critic of ‘radical feminism’ and ‘secular academia.’

She wrote in the Preface of this 1996 book, “Since the appearance of [my book] ‘Feminism Without Illusions,’ I have spoken with a large number of young professional women… many planning to become mothers. Those conversations had an implicit refrain: 'Feminism is not talking about my life'... it struck me that those conversations echoed the words of the many women of all classes and races who regularly tell reporters and pollsters, ‘I am not a feminist, but…’ … it took two years for this book to take shape… I kept wrestling with the problem of why so many women who fiercely value independence refused to identify with femnism.

“For several decades, I have called myself a feminist and, like many women of my generation, have been puzzled that so many women reject the term even though they have benefited from the feminist gains of the past thirty years. Hard experience has also taught me that the ‘official’ feminist movement does not have much patience for women who do not support every plank it its increasingly radical platform… the women whom I interviewed… had a gut sense that feminism was not talking about their lives. Worse, they had a sneaking suspicion that feminists do not think that their lives are important… I make no pretense to have constructed a scientific sample, although I have every effort to include women of different backgrounds, generations, and parts of the country.” (Pg. 1-3)

Later, she summarizes, “From these women and men, and from those with whom I have spoken, comes the really bad news for the feminist movement: The overwhelming majority of American women perceive feminism as irrelevant. In their view, feminism has no answer for the women’s issues that most concern them. It is not even talking about the women’s issues that most concern them. It is not writing a compelling story about women’s lives. Worse, it is not writing a convincing story about our world. These are the women (and men) for whom this book is written.” (Pg. 32-33)

She asserts, “These days, more and more feminists seem to be relaxing into some of the pleasures of a modern femininity. And some designers… are apparently designing their clothes with the new breed of upscale, feminist career woman in mind. Various feminist subcultures have developed an arresting style that frequently emphasizes black leather and exudes a heightened sense of sexuality. Many radical feminists retain a puritanical hostility to anything that suggest traditional femininity, but even their self-consciously plain clothes make a distinct ‘fashion’ statement.’ (Pg. 56)

She argues, “living with sexual liberation has proved more confusing than many of us initially expected, primarily because of conflicts about the claims of morality. By the 1980s, most Americans no longer saw sex as a moral issue in the way our grandparents did. Moral concerns did not disappear, but in a period of exceptionally rapid change agreement on a public standard seemed elusive, if not impossible. So, people turned to private standards: I act according to my conscience (if any) and you act according to yours….[Some] believed that morality was inherently public and that its privatization would leave us with no morality at all. Abortion has dramatized this controversy. For unconditional opponents, abortion is murder, and private conscience cannot be invoked to justify murder. For unconditional supporters, abortion on demand guarantees a woman’s freedom. Meanwhile, most Americans continue to believe that women should be able to choose abortion but not under all circumstances.” (Pg. 86-87)

She observes, “The most striking consequence of the sexual revolution has been the virtual disappearance of the double standard. Although men and women have different views on a variety of sexual issues, the vast majority agree that they should be bound by the same sexual standards after marriage as well as before, and more than 90%^ condemns extramarital affairs for both women and men. This growing acceptance of sexual parity between women and men does not mean that people do not want limits to apply equally to women and men.” (Pg. 95)

She argues, “Feminists have frequently expressed sympathy for women who are caught in these conflicting pulls, but mainly to insist that women need more help from husbands or more and cheaper day care in order to break free of burdensome family responsibilities. And although feminists regularly insist that they respect any choice a woman makes about her life, it is difficult to find much feminist support for women who decide that their commitment to family must, at least once in a while, take precedence over their commitment to work. As a result, many women who do decide to treat family responsibilities as their primary ‘job’ believe that feminists have contempt for their choice. And not surprisingly, more than a few return the contempt, holding feminists responsible for the weakening of families.” (Pg. 118)

She points out, “The problems of working mothers lie at the center of women’s relation to work, but no one is giving them the attention they deserve. Feminists who enthusiastically defend women’s right to work tend to argue that enough day care or cooperation from fathers themselves can solve the problems. Conservatives tend to argue that women with young children simply should not work… Both of these attitudes ignore the hard realities of the work in which women find themselves. Working mothers are not exceptions among women. They are the norm, and they are here to stay.” (Pg. 125)

She contends, “More often than not, feminists advance statistics about violence against women to promote a perception of women as the bloodied victims of men’s war of conquest against them. But while the claims of victimization apply to some situations, they have been wildly exaggerated… Ironically, many of the perceived feminist solutions to the perceived problems of sexual violence against women resemble nothing so much as a restoration of the paternal authority against which feminists claim to be in revolt. But the authority they favor is… of the government over us all.” (Pg. 164)

She states, “the United States stands out among industrialized nations as the one in which women do best and children do worst. Our society is unmistakably failing its children.. Divorce and remarriage play an important role in these patterns, but so does the economic pressure for both partners to work full-time.” (Pg. 201)

She concludes, “It saddens me immeasurably to think that my views may seem threatening or oppressive to younger women, especially those I teach… These days, that ability to enjoy one’s children has become a rare and previous freedom that too few women enjoy and too few people recognize as freedom at all…. And … it remains the work that, if freely and lovingly done, will assure our society’s future.” (Pg. 258)

This book will interest those seeking critiques of contemporary feminism.

[Beth]

Fox-Genovese offers a family feminism, one that attempts to think about the flourishing of the vast majority of women for whom family matters matter. Includes interesting perspectives from women we don't always hear about in feminist scholarship.

[Carrie]

women's studies

[Maggie · Rating 2 out of 5]

For bookclub

[Heather Denigan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted more! I wish the stories had gone more in depth and maybe described how feminism didn't satisfy the women contributing.