Unraveling the Undertow

Wonder Woman had it all. She could be all, do all, know all. In the 1970’s TV version she could fall in love, work as a secretary, and save the world from the Nazis. As an iconic symbol of the 1970’s feminist movement, she also became its curse. Activist and Ms. Magazine editor at the time, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, warned heavily against the hype of the superwoman; she said: “Many feminists became feminists precisely because we have been trying to have it all. We discovered it is simply impossible.” Adding to Wonder Woman’s contradictions as a feminist role model included her physical proportions, her wardrobe, her whiteness. Wonder Woman was an imperfect and messy symbol at best.   

Second wave feminism, like its superhero icon, achieved many important goals: politically, culturally, and in the societal perceptions of women, including financial freedom, reproductive rights, domestic violence protections, and workplace justice. Nevertheless, movements too are messy and, as we shall see, they not only battle the war they are designed to fight, but wars within as well. We can look at Bess Wohl’s play, Liberation, as a microcosm of the movement itself, and see the events of the play as reflective of the wider life cycle and conflicts inherent in second wave feminism.  

What is a “social movement”? According to Jonathan Christiansen, social movements are: 

Organized yet informal social entities that are engaged in extra-institutional conflict that is oriented towards a goal. . .either aimed at a specific and narrow policy or more broadly aimed at cultural change.

Sociologists offer us several models of social movements. Let’s look at one called the four-stage model—its life cycle is characterized by Christiansen in this way:

• Emergence: Widespread discontent with some policy or social condition, but no organization
• Coalescence: More clearly defined sense of discontent, people coming together and leaders emerge
• Bureaucratization (or Formalization): Higher levels of organization and coalition-based strategies, with increasing political power
• Decline: Not necessarily failure, this could mean a movement has been repressed, co-opted, succeeded, or failed 

Movements are cyclical—they can evolve, re-emerge, or be absorbed into other movements. In Liberation, we see evidence of this cyclical nature. The consciousness-raising group begun by our protagonist, Lizzie (suffice it to say, not Wonder Woman), flows through these four stages in a way that mirrors the wider movement. We witness its cyclical nature through the theatrical magic of flashback as we see across time how each woman integrates the movement into their ongoing lived experience through life decisions and continued action. Today, we are already through our third, into our fourth, and arguably on our way to a fifth wave of feminism, and in the play each character has sustained the original call to liberation in different ways throughout their lifetime. Hence the “wave” metaphor: some things are left on the sand, others are carried back out to sea and the whole process roars forward yet again, repeating itself in a new way at a new time. Some critics argue against the wave metaphor altogether, believing that it is an oversimplification of feminist history relying on the linear belief that things move forward only one movement at a time, when according to Sarah Pruitt in an article published by History.com “in reality, each movement includes smaller, overlapping sub-groups, which are often at odds with each other.”   

Let’s look at some of the ways second wave feminism was at odds internally, through the lens of the women of Liberation and focusing on three areas: clashing goals, burnout amongst members, and issues around inclusivity.   

CLASHING GOALS

Though 1975 was declared by the United Nations as the International Year of the Woman, there remained debate as to what equality should look like. There were many theories of feminist thought that broke the movement into several “schools.” One competing philosophy was the “equality-difference” controversy that took hold early on.  The central question of the “equality-difference” argument was whether equality with men meant same as men; in other words, as Judith Evans explains in Feminist Theory Today, “we deserve to be equal with you, for we are in fact the same. We possess the same capabilities.” This philosophy discounted any differences between the sexes—even useful ones. Though today there exist at least seven schools of feminism, scholars regularly reference four at play during the second wave. These differing schools of thought and strategies made sisterhood a difficult goal to achieve from early on. According to MasterClass, these schools included:

• Liberal Feminism focused on working within existing structures to achieve equality in society
• Radical Feminism focused on dismantling the current system, believed to be a patriarchy within which equality is impossible
• Socialist Feminism focused on the breakup of the capitalistic system that devalues women’s work
• Cultural Feminism believing women are distinctively different, that their perspectives and gifts are seen by society as inferior, but are unique, possibly even superior, and must be elevated

Add to this splintering the misguided notion that women could be—should be—Wonder Woman, a belief called “a dangerous distortion. . . a new cult for women” by the editor of Ms. Magazine at the time, and “the exact opposite of what Second Wave activists sought”, according to Kirsten Swinth in her book Feminism’s Forgotten Fight: The Unfinished Struggle for Work and Family.  

BURNOUT

Other aspects of the movement prevented it from living up to its promises of inclusion; for example, meetings and events were held when mothers could not attend, feminist men attempted to transform male roles within the family, but cuts in social programs under President Reagan hampered this change as did corporate business structures and culture. And the radical feminists’ disdain towards traditional family roles caused friction and mistrust with other feminists. As for the lesbians in the movement, they were labeled the “lavender menace” by Betty Friedan in 1969; she feared they would discredit and hurt the movement. These Radicalesbians, led by Karla Jay among others, went on to create the “Lavendar Menace” movement, fighting outright against the wider feminist movement. They would finally enact pivotal change by means of dramatic protest against The Second Congress to Unite Women in 1970. The following year NOW passed a resolution recognizing “the oppression of lesbians as a legitimate concern of feminism” though Jay noted they “were not accepted as equal partners” until 1977. That year Betty Friedan apologized to the group for the label and for ostracizing them. And in an era when lesbianism was considered a “gross abnormality,” trans women were never even recognized, and are only now being integrated into the fight for equality.  

Though pivotal Black and queer feminists such as Dr. Pauli Murray brought intersectionality into the conversation connecting women’s rights, racial rights, and gay rights, progress was still hampered in creating a unified sisterhood. According to scholar and author Kirsten Swinth, ongoing opposing priorities and strategies between the liberal, radical, and cultural schools of feminism damaged the possibility of true sisterhood. Causes were moved forward at different times and at different paces, depending on the priority for each group. In her book Feminism’s Forgotten Fight, Swinth says “Class divides and the separate realities of white women and women of color made for distinct needs and concerns” as did divisions between the groups; white activists did not always understand nor embrace the needs and priorities of the feminists of color, who in turn often perceived white feminists with suspicion.     

Nevertheless, as author and scholar Amy Farrell states in her article “Attentive to Difference: Ms. Magazine, Coalition Building, and Sisterhood,” despite the plethora of scholarship ready to doom second wave feminism as “unaware”, “unconcerned”, and “unwilling” to embrace the life experience, identities, and priorities of all women, there is plenty of evidence that they in fact “grappled with issues of diversity, worked to bridge differences, and chose a myriad of complicated tactics to accomplish their goals.” Farrell believes: “The fact that they were only sometimes successful—and often failed—speaks not to their indifference but rather to the difficulty of creating and sustaining feminist, progressive movements.”  

SURFING SEA CHANGE

Going forward, if indeed we are heading into the next wave, what should these messy undercurrents teach us? How can we make room for expanded choices, embrace intersectionality and diversity of all kinds, see those not yet seen, and channel it all into coalition-building, solidarity, organized political activism, and lasting change?  

Unlike Wonder Woman, none of us can do this alone. Each of us brings different choices, life experience, and talents. And the movement needs them all. And despite the challenges to come together, Dr. Kimberly George believes, “that is where our collective power is, in community.” She believes building coalitions is key: “Coalition is where we build collective power over differences of identity.” She goes on to say that “. . . sometimes we live in systems that are based on divide, separate, conquer... The challenge of those moments in history is to build collective power across differences of identity.” 

Solidarity, a goal of coalition-building, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards.” In their book, Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea, Leah Hunt-Hendrix and Astra Taylor lay out keys for the success of social movements, breaking down the idea of solidarity and what it demands. They establish a set of virtues required for the work of achieving solidarity, one virtue being that it requires: 

 [C]ommitment, and commitment as we understand it has two dimensions: depth and duration...Transformative solidarity is not a tweet or a yard sign. It is not casual, it is often inconvenient, and the outcomes can be unpredictable, which brings us to the next virtue...courage.  

In their book they conclude that solidarity also demands the virtues of: 

Humility and curiosity... cultivating humility and curiosity guards against rigidity and self-righteousness, dogmatic tendencies that have destroyed many social movements and inflicted harm on a range of scales... Mistakes will inevitably be made; movements are never perfect. But when we are open to learning from our errors and willing to try again, failing is often better than not trying at all...The virtues of humility and curiosity... increase our odds of success because they enable us to connect with others as equals and build the multi-racial, multigenerational, multi-geographic movements we need... The fighting faith of solidarity is grounded in the recognition that we are all sacred, that we need each other to survive...Solidarity is the only thing that can save us. 

That and perseverance. As Dr. George points out, activists “often did not see the change in their lifetime, but they held the possibility of change.” If nothing else, let’s hold on to that possibility, even as we try to hold on to each other in the surf.