Doing Gender in Media, Art and Culture

A Comprehensive Guide to Gender Studies

Rosemarie Buikema, Liedeke Plate, Kathrin Thiele, Rosemarie Buikema, Liedeke Plate, Kathrin Thiele

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351974820
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Femminismo e teoria femminista

Doing Gender in Media, Art and Culture, 2nd edition is a comprehensive gender studies textbook with an international focus and relevance across a broad range of academic disciplines. Covering an array of topics, theories and approaches to gender studies, it introduces students to the study of gender through geographically diverse case studies on different historical and contemporary figures. The volume covers the established canon of gender studies, including questions of representation, standpoints and intersectionality. It addresses emerging areas including religion, technology and online feminist engagement, as well as complex contemporary phenomena such as globalization, neoliberalism and 'fundamentalism'. Core figures ranging from Simone de Beauvoir to Gloria Anzaldua and from Florence Nightingale to Malala Yousafzai serve as prisms of gender-sensitive analysis for each chapter. This vibrant textbook is essential reading for anyone in need of an accessible yet sophisticated guide to gender studies today.

PART I
Debates

1 The arena of feminism_ Simone de Beauvoir and the history of feminism

Iris van der Tuin

Figure 1.1 Simone De Beauvoir © Milner Moshe

Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) is best known for her treatise The Second Sex (Le deuxième sexe). First published in 1949, the book probes perceptions of women and discusses the way they are represented, how women see themselves, and what the future might hold for young girls. De Beauvoir advances the theory that women are classified as secondclass citizens in relation to men. She also maintains that men as well as women persist in affirming this unequal relationship, both in the choices they make and in their actions, as these appear to be the fruit of rigid and inflexible role patterns. Men are in control of the economy, of history, education, and representation. It appears as if women can improve their position by finding a suitable marriage partner, but as soon as they give up their jobs to have children, they are in fact finished. They can no longer fulfil themselves and are thus imprisoned in their homes from that day forth. Preoccupied with menial chores, housewives and mothers simply cannot find the time for personal growth, nor for contributing to society in any significant way.

On the face of it, de Beauvoir appears to be saying that women are inescapably stuck in a hopeless situation. Yet her analysis offers room for change. She posits that ‘On ne naît pas femme, on le devient’, a phrase best translated as ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, woman’ (de Beauvoir 2010 [1949]: 283). It is a social-constructivist statement meant to indicate that women are not determined by their biology. Because women and femininity are socially constructed, alternatives can be designed (ibid.).

De Beauvoir’s oeuvre is known throughout the world. The Second Sex is a true feminist classic, a bulky and widely translated book. A million copies were sold in France alone (Rodgers 1998: 310). The English translation sold over a million copies in the USA (Glazer 2004), and the number of translated copies sold in a minor language such as Dutch approaches 100,000 (cf. Vintges 1992: 252, note 18). Part I of The Second Sex is devoted to historical and symbolical examples of how second-class citizenship for women has actually been realised. Part II concentrates on the social relationships between men and women and discusses the ways in which women give shape to their lives. Here, de Beauvoir addresses the subjects of marriage and (lesbian) sexuality. She demonstrates that women are in a way complicit in acquiring their second-class position and limited possibilities; the kinds of choices they make appear to demonstrate women are generally reconciled to their situation.

In The Second Sex de Beauvoir argues that this situation should come to an end. Economic independence and women’s suffrage (only since 1944 in France) are a step forward in an endeavour to design a new kind of femininity and a more balanced relationship between men and women. Apart from that, women will have to liberate themselves in moral, social, and psychological terms as well. In aspiring towards economic independence, women should acquire an active attitude — which is, de Beauvoir maintains, entirely against their habits (de Beauvoir 2010 [1949]: 721–751).

De Beauvoir was radically ahead of her time with her statements on the position of women. However, for a long time she considered ‘feminism’ to be a dirty word. In The Second Sex readers are urged to be wary of men judging women, of women’s enthusiasm about ‘real womanhood’, and of men glorifying the abominable position of women. She then adds the following caveat: ‘We must not, however, be any less mistrustful of feminists’ arguments: very often their attempt to polemicize robs them of all value’ (ibid.: 15). Hence, the project of The Second Sex is to re-examine the so-called ‘woman question’. She posits: ‘To see clearly, one needs to get out of these ruts; these vague notions of superiority, inferiority, and equality that have distorted all discussions must be discarded in order to start anew’ (ibid.).

Yet, as is attested by The Second Sex’s mottos, she too relies on the work of earlier thinkers who are generally seen as feminists avant la lettre. One of these mottos is derived from the French enlightenment thinker Francois Poulain de la Barre (1647–1723), who wrote that ‘Everything that has been written by men about women should be viewed with suspicion, because they are both judge and party’ (de Beauvoir 2010 [1949]: v; cf. Stuurman 2004). This statement should not be read as an imputation directed towards all men. What Poulain de la Barre, himself both a man and a feminist avant la lettre, indicates here is that the position from which gendered relations are being criticised should be taken into account as an integral part of the critique itself — even more so when this position concerns a comfortable place within the gender hierarchy. Poulain de la Barre’s work is firmly secured in the feminist canon, to the extent that it was only recently admitted to the philosophical canon at all (ibid.). In fact, the same is true for the work of de Beauvoir. It was not until 1992 that Karen Vintges made a case for interpreting de Beauvoir’s oeuvre, and in particular The Second Sex, in philosophical terms. Until then, despite de Beauvoir’s initial aversion of the term, her work had carried the label of feminism, which shows that apparently the categories ‘feminist’ and ‘philosophical’ are mutually exclusive (cf. Braidotti 1991). However, as is demonstrated by Berteke Waaldijk and Geertje Mak in this book, the process of canonising is an inherently gendered process that can nevertheless still be manipulated by (individual) women.

In 1974 the German feminist Alice Schwarzer made a documentary film about de Beauvoir. Writing mainly for periodicals, Schwarzer was also the general editor of Emma and, as such, the equivalent of Gloria Steinem, who ran the major feminist magazine in the United States, Ms. In the documentary, de Beauvoir is portrayed as the feminist, and the viewer can see that she appears to be entirely comfortable in this role. Schwarzer, who also wrote about de Beauvoir, interviews her and offers us a glimpse into her personal life. We see a living room littered with souvenirs and a desk piled with various papers. We witness de Beauvoir taking a stroll, reading the newspaper, and painting her nails. She is then introduced by a voice-over as the world-famous author of novels, autobiographies, travel accounts, and political and philosophical essays, including The Second Sex. The countless translations of her work subsequently appear on screen. Schwarzer claims that The Second Sex was a vital book in the process of women’s emerging awareness, in the late 1960s, of the hopeless situation for women in general and in particular for themselves.

Schwarzer explains that, in the wake of American journalists, de Beauvoir is generally pictured as the mother of feminism Schwarzer seeks to discard this image in her documentary and wonders who de Beauvoir really is: is she the intellectual, emancipated woman who is just as capable as men; is she first and foremost the close friend and lover of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), and is her fame merely built upon her relationship with this existentialist philosopher; or is she perhaps a woman who claims happiness whilst not being able to escape women’s second-class citizenship herself?

From the way the documentary is constructed, it seems clear that Schwarzer wishes to tell the ‘truth’ about de Beauvoir. However, since the advent of postmodernism, such a naive truth concept no longer holds. Elsewhere in this book Kathrin Thiele reveals how the construction of situated (feminist) knowledge claims operate, whilst Rosemarie Buikema subsequently demonstrates the impossibility of an unequivocal answer to the question of the meaning of a work of art. In addition, Rosi Braidotti shows that feminists began to criticise the alleged universal validity attributed to ideas on truth in the 1970s. It is therefore legitimate to question the image of de Beauvoir created by Schwarzer and how this image relates to other stories about her.

Although the documentary mentions de Beauvoir’s initial aversion to feminism, the emphasis nevertheless is on her role in feminism during the 1960s and 1970s. In a number of takes, de Beauvoir spells out the feminist list of demands: find a job, do not get married, do not have children, bisexuality for all women, and legalize abortion (abortion as well as contraceptives were still prohibited in France when Le deuxième sexe came out in 1949). The documentary ends with images of a festive dinner party in de Beauvoir’s apartment, organised by a group of feminists in honour of Schwarzer’s fortnight in Paris. Both the manner of filming the ‘list of demands’ and the farewell dinner party serve yet again to frame de Beauvoir as the mother of feminism. Although the documentary features a variety of feminists, it is de Beauvoir who states the feminist demands and who thus becomes the representative of French feminism par excellence. Moreover, she is clearly exalted by the feminists present at the dinner party, all of whom are of another, younger generation. Schwarzer sought to abandon the standard image of de Beauvoir, but it is in fact, reaffirmed. The image of the mother of feminism appears to be firmly glued to de Beauvoir (cf. Sara Ahmed’s notion of ‘sticky signs’ in Ahmed 2004: 92).

This mother role also comes to the fore in the way de Beauvoir’s relationships and affairs are portrayed in the documentary. A collage of photographs of (young) female and male (ex-) lovers is used to emphasise that she did not have a monogamous lifestyle. However, the view given is rather one-sided. The suggestion is that her daily rhythm is determined by her friendship with Sartre: they have lunch together, they work together, and after dinner they play a game of draughts and listen to music. Her ex-lover Sylvie le Bon only plays the part of intimate younger friend and adopted daughter. For example, the documentary shows that de Beauvoir administers some motherly advice to le Bon, on teaching philosophy. In reality, both appear to have abhorred the idea of a mother— daughter relationship both in theory and in practice, even though le Bon was indeed adopted by de Beauvoir in 1980 — a formal decision instigated by the necessity to manage de Beauvoir’s (literary) heritage (Kaufmann 1986: 127; Bair 1996: 600 ff.). They felt that a one-sided emphasis on the mother—daughter relationship as the only possible relationship between women of unequal age represented — and even prolonged — an oppressive stereotype. Deirdre Bair, de Beauvoir’s biographer, even suggests that de Beauvoir once again turned away from feminism towards the end of her life because it would focus too much, in her view, on mother—daughter models. The documentary filmed by Schwarzer leaves indeed no room for any alternative to such positioning This raises the question of whether it is effectively true that the only way to think about feminism is in terms of mothers and daughters.

Waves and generations

Simone de Beauvoir is an important figure in the history of feminism, one whose work has exerted worldwide influence upon social women’s movements because of its numerous translations. Feminist history is often characterised as a succession of metaphorical ‘waves’. The wave metaphor can rightfully be considered a feminist measurement tool (van der Tuin 2011). After all, this instrument has been developed by feminists themselves in order to grasp their own history. The first feminist wave crested around 1900 and was mainly concerned with women’s right to vote. The second wave shook the world between 1965 and 1980, with radical positions on, mostly, the female body, sexuality, and relationships. The wave metaphor aptly encompasses the heyday of feminism as well as its (temporary) submergence. Continuously in motion, waves have neither an end nor a beginning; yet the wave’s crest will inevitably disappear into the undercurrent. By suggesting both continuity and discontinuity, the wave metaphor is therefore eminently suitable for characterising developments within feminism Still, within gender studies, there is also critique on the use of the wave metaphor to represent developments in feminism. For example, who can identify the crest or decide its moment? And if it turns out that the heyday of Black, non-western or lesbian feminism is not ever described in terms of a crest, should the conclusion then be that the wave metaphor is racist, Eurocentric, or heteronormative?

Another reason for being circumspect about the wave metaphor becomes apparent once we realise that the crests of feminist waves are generationally delimited — a characteristic property of the way in which the wave metaphor is applied within gender studies (van der Tuin 2015). The historiography of feminism suggests that the second feminist wave was predominantly due to baby boomers, a generation born just after World War II, with a liberal sexual morality and radical political positions. They were hippies; they were opposed to the war in Vietnam; and they fuelled the battle for democratising European universities in May 1968. Moreover, baby boomers did not go along with the general 1960s belief that women’s emancipation had been accomplished (Meijer 1996: 26). In addition, they were critical of the first feminist wave. In their view, first-wave feminists had not been radical enough; the important achievement of women’s right to vote was seen as a form of emancipation on paper that was not matched by real life liberation. Moreover, baby boomers were critical of the type of woman they associated with first-wave feminism• supposedly upper middle-class bluestockings. In other words, first-wave feminists allegedly defended the interests of only a limited group or worse, they defended only their own interests, reaching an exclusive group of women whose already ‘good life’ would be improved even more.

What the waves in feminism have in common — that is, a radical position with respect to inequality between men and women — fades to the background when waves are primarily seen in generational terms. The dualist mechanism of one generation succeeding another then becomes the central issue. The dynamic of generations is habitually seen in dualist terms: each new generation is opposed to its predecessors and is not necessarily motivated by historically accurate information in doing so (stereotypes are being deployed). This pattern also emerges in the historiography of feminism. We now know that first-wave feminists did carry out radical acts — especially the suffragettes in Britain, who chained themselves to railings and ran out in front of horses in order to make their objectives (the admittance of women into masculine domains) known to politicians. They were prepared to lay down their lives for an emancipatory goal and displayed both physical strength and courage.

The second feminist wave, in turn, was criticised by members of the so-called ‘generation X’. These ‘post-feminists’, as they called themselves, distanced themselves from what they felt were ‘moaning feminists’, who publicly denounced their own unsatisfactory sexual and/or professional lives (consider for instance the ‘glass ceiling’). Again we witness here how stereotypes are deployed in order to call one’s own feminist politics into being — in this case a post-feminist politics — at the expense of the previous generation.

Gender studies scholars have not only developed the wave metaphor in order to formulate their own historical canon and field of expertise, and to make visible both continuity and discontinuity; they have also sought to reconsider the model of generational dialectics for describing the developments in feminism. Second-wave feminism did not just present itself as different from first-wave feminism, but also as more advanced. Feminists of the 1970s opted for emphasising the differences between men and women, which involved a revaluation and/or stimulation of the feminine The strategy that was important to feminists around 1900 — the struggle for access into the masculine domain was consequently written off as inferior, as this strategy presupposed that those masculine domains need not change: it was merely necessary to include women.

There are at least two reasons for disputing the low merit awarded to the strategy of first-wave feminism. Firstly, the first-wave notion of equality is still in use as the most efficient way to effectuate a solution for certain problems (think of equal rights and equal opportunities commissions or the campaign instigated by Amnesty International, ‘Women’s Rights are Human Rights’). The claim that the equality strategy is by definition inferior therefore simply does not hold. Secondly, radical thoughts are not necessarily mutually exclusive to thinking in terms of equality. Domains are connoted either in a masculine or in a feminine way (think for ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• Part I Debates
• Part II. Disciplines
• Part III Food for thought
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index