Introduction

In the Fall of 2000, a letter from Lisa Johnson to the Women Writers Listserv recommended ManifestA, saying "ever wonder where the phrase 'a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle' really came from? This book can tell you." I was, like that fish on a bicycle, hooked on the idea and tired of spinning my wheels on my project of the moment. (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun). I ordered the book right away and when it came, I read it in two long night-reading-sessions after school. At the same time I was reading feminist theory from the late 1980's, learning more about the fragmentation of Second Wave feminism's "sisterhood" that took place after the headiness of "Women's Lib" and the failure of the ERA.

Women of color and women from international circles pointed out in this 1980's theory that a "woman's way of knowing" was different depending on what kind of woman you were, that assumptions of feminism were largely assumptions of middle-class white women with a lot of privileges. Feminists were deploring and debating essentialism in feminism; the "clash" between theory and practice, and countless other debates were being hashed out. It seemed to me in reading all of this that in some ways, the powerful women's movements were, if not "dead" (as the media likes to declare every year or two) at least not speaking to each other.

When I first picked up the book, I was a little freaked out by the photo of the authors at the front of the book, where you usually find a blank page, rather than the back (as norm), thinking that perhaps the authors were capitalizing on their good looks in a way that suggested a supermodel sort of celebrity instead of selling the "meat and substance" of their ideas . . . but as I read, I realized that my feelings were created by a second wave agenda to deny certain parts of being Feminine for being Feminist. And I became glad that the photo shows women confidently asserting themselves. . . being women, being young, being feminist. I include it on the site for the same reason, for the same reason I include a photo of myself on the website (on my bio page) too – so that readers can get to know me in a way that doesn't hide the personal part of myself as the author. I came to realize that Baumgardner and Richards were inscribing their human faces to a place usually dedicated to silence, to blankness. What a start for a feminist project!

I was intrigued with the history lesson that the authors offered, charmed by its recollection of magazines I remembered from my days as a teenaged girl, trying to "figure it all out." (Sassy was a favorite read of mine in which I tried to publish a story in their "it happened to me" column, much more healthy than my sister's Cosmo; I missed it, without knowing that I did). I liked their discussion of Barbie, and decided to "out" myself about my own secret fetish for wandering down Barbie's fuschia pink aisles in the toystores, coveting the pink plastic boxes, ever more cool clothes and accessories. I liked the sense the book had of claiming a place for women of my generation (the 20-30 somethings that are never discussed in feminist debate). I had felt a sense of arriving on the feminist scene "too late" for all the good stuff; ManifestA made me aware that there was a community of women like me who grew up with feminism as a matter of fact, and that the cognitive spaces and shapes of young feminists need to be explored. I decided to try to touch base with that community. I liked the writing, and the debate they raised about how we approach young women today, in our era of so-called "post-feminism".

I decided to review the book for the next issue.

But then I thought, hey, what about a collaborative project? I mean, the book itself is collaborative. The project of feminism that the book details is a group effort. Why should my voice be the only one heard in reviewing what is essentially a call to action for all young feminists? And I decided that a listserv was essentially the collaborative forum for a new, previously unheard of type of discourse. It eventually seemed natural to review the book and then review the reviews.

So I did the legwork to get a collaborative review of the book going, called for contributors on a women's studies listserv, begged copies of the book, created a listserv where we could post the reviews and hopefully a conversation about those reviews. I pestered Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner for comments or participation after getting their email addresses from a mutual source.

It took a while– it was harder than I thought it would be. A number of the initial contactees who were interested in participating just "fell off the map" when the time came to write a review. The holiday season of December got in the way. What seemed before like an easy project stretched before me, unfinished. Like Feminism? Hmmm.

I hesitated to add my review to the discussion too soon. The listserv lasted from late November 2000 to January 2001. The contributions of the reviewers were posted on the list, and then they were encouraged to comment on other people's reviews. I didn't want the reviewers to feel that I was trying to lead their impressions of the book, trying to slant the review in my own preferred direction. Some reviewers seemed to feel much more un-represented by the book than I did. I think their points are valid critiques, but I first saw the good parts of the book (in my own pollyanna-ish way). I eventually felt that the book may not be "Perfect" but wondered why we should have that expectation for a book in the first place? Did we expect The Feminine Mystique to fit all of us? If so, maybe that was one of the early mistakes we made–to assume that one woman, or in this case two women, could speak for all.

Finally, one more thing to think about. When I presented this book to my dissertation director, with the goal of adding it to my list of feminist texts, she said "isn't it more journalism than theory?" I had to think about it, and I decided that yes, in a sense, it is a journalistic book. But it is also theoretically informed, a gauntlet thrown down to young women to challenge us to begin figuring it out for ourselves. It challenges us to stand up in that room full of feminists and, when someone says "what do young women want?" say "HERE! WE'LL TELL YOU what some of us want– But it's gonna take a while." It may not be the same thing at every meeting. By god, that's the whole point of feminismS– that we all have differences as well as similarities. We can either choose to add our voices (dissent and all) to the conversation or we can be silenced, can become a white page of nothing. We can write with white ink on new pages. (with nods to Cixous' "Laugh of the Medusa").

This book creates a new category, of theory-informed perspective that is personal AND political, both journalism and autobiography– a hybrid declaration of a hybrid force.

This review of ManifestA has been a learning experience for me as an editor– the way a project takes shape out of your control. But ion all, I'm thrilled to have created something new, something wholly "third wave" in shape and place. The first reviews are mixed--and critique as much as they praise (although I believe praise is the ultimate mood). Jennifer Baumbargner adds her voice, not so much to defend but to answer of some of the points the reviewers raise. Finally, in what turned out to be the perfect ending, Lisa Johnson (who started the whole review off in the first place by recommending the book on the listserv) attempts to build upon the strengths of the book.

Fasten your seatbelts, dears. We're in for a bumpy ride.

Kim Wells kim@womenwriters.net

1/26/01

Frances DiSalvo 12/10/00

You will never hear the words "I'm not a feminist, but. . ." come out of my mouth or into anything I do (except in the above form, of course!). In fact, I consider myself a rip-roaring young feminist who is also feeling very disillusioned and stagnant. Self-schooled in first and second wave feminism, what I believe is the number one contributor to my stagnation is my overwhelming feeling of isolation.

Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards write in ManifestA: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future, that "one can actually make a living as a feminist intellectual" (76). Later on they describe the experiences of a girl who takes three tries to actually work up the courage to go to her interview and land the job in the computer world (181). They conclude that "the issue of exposure and experience [presumably in the real world] for girls is critical" (181). How does one go from not having the exposure and experience to becoming a feminist intellectual?

The authors make it very clear that one of the major goals of ManifestA is to bridge the disconnect between the political interpretation of feminism and individual third-waver's lives (48). They recognize the search for a "doyenne" (they hit the nail on the head in terms of my own seeking-experience) while they argue against this leadership-need saying: "as if we don't have feminism if we can't point to the 'next' Gloria, Angela, Betty, or Alice," adding, "that's not necessarily a sign of dissolution for feminism" (84). They try to get us to replace our mostly passive/non-existent public lives by supplying a wealth of knowledge and resources, as well as examples of Third-wavers who are doing the everyday activism.

Personally, Richards and Baumgardner are helping me come out of a bout of my own "fear of success" syndrome. I agree; it seems as if young people today simply have feminist expectations without thinking about where to go from there. Feminism is "in the water" as Baumgardner and Richards write and also very undetectable. The mindlessness I observe in people with feminist goals who do not recognize them as such has contributed to my own feelings of isolation, although Richards and Baumgardner do a good job of highlighting where this is not the case.

However, at the same time, I can't help but notice that something seems to be lacking in ManifestA. Perhaps highlighting the underground feminist/political actions of this generation is not enough. I recognize that I too am "trapped in my own earnestness about Third Wave feminism" as Jennifer writes in her introduction (xix). Yet there seems to be something askew when we must settle for "private heroines" or replications of people doing big things on the local level (84). Local level is important, yet media and other ways of conveying ideas do not operate on very many local levels. And the media conveys ideas that often go unquestioned/uncriticized.

For instance, on Cibyl Shepherd's new talk show last week, she brought heterosexual couples on to engage in a serious discussion about "emotional wives verses logical husbands." The show had the importance of dialoguing – very easily a feminist trend – down pat, yet at the same time they were reifying binarisms by highlighting how emotional the wives get over "insignificant" issues (such as laundry), and how difficult it is to talk to someone as logical as husbands are. The show made it seem like many American women are married to a version of a Star-Trek-ian Vulcan. I was horrified. Part of my attempt to half-heartedly succumb to my "fear of success syndrome" was to convince myself that indeed, feminism is not only dead, all the issues have been covered. Yet this sort of unending, (and seemingly unknowing) gaffes that I constantly witness, such as on Shepherd's show, say otherwise. ManifestA recognizes the same problems and also partly supplies the how-to in overcoming them.

On the other hand, I'm sure that Baumgardner & Richards would say to look at all the positives things going on here – couples are hashing out everyday household issues, they are discussing equality in house labor, and they are bringing their issues into the public (no matter how staged). They might say this is definitely an example of the personal as political, and something that wouldn't have happened before feminism. Yet to go back to my criticism above, the national level (or at least multi-state) of this TV show conveys that equal housework labor is supposedly strived for, yet the issue is not recognized as feminist. At the same time, a binarism such as emotional verses logical is not even questioned – not the assumption that it is natural and unchangeable, nor the idea that the husbands can get "emotional" too (since that is what we are calling anger these days, perish the thought!) when, for instance, the TV remote is confiscated.

Jennifer writes to the disconnect in her introduction when she reflects on her sister's unwillingness to tell her parents that she is pregnant: "the woman's movement ensured that my sister had the right to an abortion, but the feminist interpretation of choice didn't make it onto the coattails of Roe v. Wade" (xvii). However, the idea that "revolution always starts small" or "the power of everyday feminism" implies that we need to START a revolution. The revolution has already begun – that's why Shepherd thinks her show is so wonderful! The question is where have all the feminists gone? Who is going to speak up while I prepare to step into the limelight as well?

Baumgardner and Richards look to Second Wavers and come out critical: according to them, Phyllis Chesler's Letters to a Young Feminist is condescending and motherly (86), second wavers are not recognizing the different state of affairs for third wavers (141). Yes, I'm willing to take in stride (not from experience, that is) that second-wavers have effectively unplugged themselves from the younger set. But where does that leave me? Who shall I look to, especially if the revolution has already begun? Feminism as it stands today may becoming less of a revolution and more of a gigantic avalanche.

Also, it seems to me that in the example I set above, society values healthy marriages and equally shared domestic labor, which must be attributed to previous feminist movements. However, are these things valued through a patriarchal lens? That is to say, is equality in the home looked at as "this is how we keep wives quiet these days"? Have women gotten off the pedestal constructed by the patriarchy? Or are we just playing musical pedestals?

I am not sure if I am necessarily stepping away from what Baumgardner and Richards write, or if I am simply approaching their ideas on activism and politics from a more theory-ridden angle. Finally, this seeming lack of theory in ManifestA seems to be a loose end in the work.

Frances DiSalvo fjdisalvo@hotmail.com

Rebecca Tolley-Stokes 12/12/00

Baumgardner and Richards explain the generation gap between second and third wave feminists in ManifestA: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. Including historical development of women's rights and feminism, the authors focus on recent issues and events in mainstream feminism. One of the most insightful criticisms they make in the relationship of second and third wavers is that we, the third wave, are basically rebelling against our mothers (the second wave); this is something that is very personal but yet effects third wave feminism.

There are several aspects of third wave feminism that the authors only fleetingly touch upon, and for this reason, the book is not inclusive. The book begins with a frightening look at a day in which there is no feminism; this "day without feminism" is reminiscent of life in the Fabulous Fifties (or in Atwood's dystopic Handmaid's Tale) and this chapter provides a perspective from which to view the gains of the past. The epilogue describes what a day with feminism is like, a day that we all can work toward. Chapter One introduces invited guests of a dinner party that the authors gave–a sort of feminist Symposium. While this gives readers an overview of the myriad issues and concerns of third wave women, the majority of women at the party are middle-class city dwellers. It made me feel that, mirroring this party, the book fails to represent women of other classes and other community backgrounds (such as rural, suburban, etc.).

Sexuality and lesbianism are mentioned in Chapter 2, "What is feminism?" But other than mentioning the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, dropping a few lesbian musician's names, and the quote "In truth, the women's movement is made up of women from all points on the sexual spectrum," this topic gets no coverage, when in fact it deserves a chapter of its own. Third wave feminists grew up in a sexually charged world. Popular culture promotes and encourages us to respond to the world in a sexual manner. Sexual topics such as pornography (not even listed in the index!) are not addressed. How and why does pornography divide third wave feminists? Are there differences between 2nd and 3rd wave feminist response to pornography? How do lesbians approach pornography? One of the best points that the authors make is about how 3rd wave feminists embrace womanhood by accepting that they like Barbie, that they enjoy make-up, stiletto heels, and dresses, which is something that 2nd wave feminists vilified via their espousal of neuter-gender appearance and theory. Can the same argument be made concerning pornography? Should 3rd wave feminists repress their sexuality? Can 3rd wave feminists appreciate porn? This question is not answered.

Feminism and media is discussed in Chapter 3, "Feminists want to know: is the media dead?" A more descriptive title would emphasize that this is mainstream media, and not alternative media. Unfortunately, zines are mentioned exactly once, "in one small but salient example, a June 18, 1999, Salon.com review of feminist zines." There is no discussion of 3rd wave feminist zines, which I think would be pertinent since 3rd wave feminists within the media work at the lower levels. The authors critique the wage gap between workers at women and men's magazines. They also analyze the wage gap between women and men writers, reporters, editors, etc. The Internet also receives very little analysis as an effective 3rd wave tool.

"Girl you'll be a woman soon," (Chapter 4) examines the development of the "girlie culture" that 3rd wave feminists adopted and passed on to younger girls. This was my favorite chapter because it reminded me of my own childhood experiences with girls' magazines, experimentation with make-up and hairstyles, and creating my identity.

Chapter 5, "Barbie vs. the menstrual kit" was old news to me; however, reading this chapter made me realize how cast aside 3rd wave feminists really are. I agree that there is a crisis in our culture for girls. However, I also believe that those girls are much more empowered and insightful than I ever was. For example, a recent Oprah show featured girls who wished to share their insights with other girls so that their peers could benefit from the lessons they learned from triumphing over their particular problems. Oprah asked why it took her 40-something years to learn how to like herself, put herself first, etc. when her teenage guests were full of wisdom at 15. I wondered the same. It's obvious that 2nd wave efforts at bolstering girl's self-esteem have worked. But we who have already made it through to young-adulthood are left to flounder without any guidance (how much of that do we really need though?) or empathy from 2nd wave feminists who focus their efforts and money on adolescent girls, who are clean slates, waiting for the imprint of our mother's feminism. This chapter disturbed me because I felt disposable and worthless in the eyes of 2nd wave feminists who would not deign to mentor me.

Chapter Six summed up the idea that I believe was the main theme of ManifestA; "Thou shalt not become thy mother." Counterpoint to the previous chapter, the authors gave several examples of 3rd wave rebellion against our "mothers" in feminism, the 2nd wave. Our mothers cannot accept criticism from us, yet they feel free to criticize, denigrate, and ignore us. Though my single working mother was (and is) not a feminist, I'm sure that she raised me "with at least some hint of feminism in the air."

I agreed with some of Katie Ropihe's sentiments regarding victimhood, which are discussed in chapter seven, "who's afraid of Katie Roiphe?" In fact, the authors agree with Roiphe that "in some ways" her points are valid. This chapter pointed out 2nd wave feminists' lack of media savvy. It also showed the politics of popular culture and how issues of feminist dissension are addressed in mainstream media.

In Chapter Seven, readers are given the answer to the question, "what is activism?" One of the myths of activism that the authors address is the myth that activism "brings an immediate and active victory." This is especially relevant to 3rd wave feminists because our generation grew up expecting instant gratification, and we largely expect this effect to occur in many aspects of our lives. We need quantitative, visible proof that our efforts throw punches. The chapter on activism, along with the two appendices detailing activist organizations, encourage 3rd wave feminists to "slowly and surely drain the power of the patriarchy with examples of positive and innovative change." It is easy to become involved in organized, robust feminist groups in large cities, but difficult to do so in smaller towns, rural areas, or regions that are conservative. The authors live in a hotbed of activity and thus find it easy to engage in feminist activism and dialogue within an established and flourishing feminist community. I found this, too, a limitation of the book and felt that although the Internet has created opportunities for feminists living in isolated areas to build connections with others, it doesn't hold a candle to one on one active participation in a thriving feminist community.

Still, for all its omissions, ManifestA is informative, written in an engaging manner, and pleasurable to read. Though Baumgardner and Richards cannot speak for every feminist of our generation, they have made an admirable attempt with ManifestA. No doubt, 3rd wave feminists will be as divided as our predecessors were in the best way to address these issues.

Rebecca Tolley-Stokes Tolleyst@etsu.edu

Note: This next part is the first collaborative response to reviews posted on the listserv, and is meant as a conversation between reviewers.– Editor...

Rebecca Tolley-Stokes 12/12/00

I read Frances DiSalvo's review with keen interest. There are issues that I am so focused on that I often don't pick up on other themes unless someone points them out to me. I too, am bothered by the "I'm not a feminist, but...." approach to being a woman. It's so frustrating when women don't realize that the gains and achievements they make/made are owed to our foremothers. It's especially frustrating and quite ironic when conservative women who urge a return to the "traditional family" are unwilling to step down from their job outside the home. Those are the same women who talk about how feminism has brought about the collapse of the family and the economy, etc., basically blaming all of society's ills upon feminism. The irony is that they aren't happy/productive in their homes, catering to every whim and demand of their spouse and children, but they expect the rest of us to return to that? Although this is a bit off the topic, it connects with what Baumgardner and Richards write in the chapter on the media about feminism being dead, about only two or three 2nd wave feminists being media queens, etc.

The Oct./Nov 2000 issue of Ms featured a story about the IWF (Independent Women's Forum), a conservative women's group that's supposed to be a GOP NOW, or something. Women of the IWF get loads of media attention. One of the points the author (Susan Jane Gilman) makes is that the feminist movement should "appropriate some of the strategies, positions, and attitudes of the IWF." (69) She goes on to say that

Maybe we need some 'on-call' girls. Some fabulous media sluts of our own. Why not forge an arsenal of well-coached sharpies who know how to stand and deliver in front of a camera in eight seconds? Why not welcome younger women into the fold without making them pass some political correctness and infighting litmus tests? Why not set aside identity politics and infighting and focus on our bigger adversaries? Why not lampoon the conservatives for every laugh we can get? The IWF has appropriated much from us. Had it not been for 'dreary; 'out-of-date,' and 'humorless' feminism, the women of IWF might very well not enjoy the power they have today–whether this means being taken seriously in the media or exercising clout on Capitol Hill. They're gotten much from the women's movement and does splendidly with it. I say it's about time we let them return the favor.

Gilman makes an excellent point. But, who is to turn 3rd wave feminists into these media savvy feminists, and how can it be done? And, on another related point, which Baumgardner and Richards address in the chapter on feminism & media and that Gilman suggests as well, when will the 2nd wave feminists allow 3rd wavers to be the face of feminism? The hoops and initiations and other "tests" that 2nd wave feminists use to deny 3rd wave feminists authenticity or national recognition mimic the same constructions that patriarchy places around any of its rewards. One of my favorite all purpose all the time quotations is Audre Lorde's "the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house" which I've paraphrased since I cannot recall the exact quote. 2nd wave feminists should not place these same barriers (hoops, initiations) they overcame in front of 3rd wave feminists. That only reinforces reliance upon patriarchal values, hierarchies, etc. 2nd wave feminists' appropriation of patriarchal standards of authenticity and authority shows their utter lack of creativity, and their inability to implement feminist theory into their everyday practices.

I too feel DiSalvo's isolation from other 3rd wave feminists. Baumgardner and Richards didn't address this in ManifestA, possibly because isolation is not something that they have experienced while being rocked in the bosom of MS Magazine. How can geographically isolated feminists gain empowerment, sisterhood, etc. of community?

DiSalvo asks "How does one go from not having the exposure and experience to becoming a feminist intellectual?" This is an excellent question, one for which I have no answer. Certainly, one can read everything about feminist theory, but that alone cannot do it. One can write and publish? is that the best route? it's certainly difficult, and would take a long time.

DiSalvo also mentions "Yet there seems to be something askew when we must settle for 'private heroines' or replications of people doing big things on the local level (84). Local level is important, yet media and other ways of conveying ideas do not operate on very many local levels. And the media conveys ideas that often go unquestioned/uncriticized." I agree that that local media is not always a viable outlet for feminist activism and/or feminist exposure today. Many of the news stories that my local station broadcasts are actually network news stories that they've dubbed their own voice-overs onto. They report the story as if it is local, assuming that a nationwide story is pertinent to my locale as long as it sounds like it's local. If this is the case elsewhere, then we should focus on national doyennes. It's rare when a local news story goes national. Sad, but national coverage of feminist activists may eventually trickle down to the isolated hamlets, villages, and boroughs, though it's not a given.

I'm consumed with do-gooderism, the compulsion for activism. Yet I'm paralyzed by a state of constant inactivity because I don't have the tools to solve the problems I see surrounding me. Each book that I read criticizes and analyzes, but they rarely ever give concrete ideas for solving, or at least impacting problems. I was pleased that ManifestA included great resources; that's a starting point. I totally agree with DiSalvo when she wrote "ManifestA recognizes the same problems and also partly supplies the how-to." So where can we find the REST of the how-to?

DiSalvo mentions families and marriages shown on Sybil Shepherd's talk show. "However, are they valued through a patriarchal lens? That is to say, is equality in the home looked at as "this is how we keep wives quiet these days"? Have women gotten off the pedestal constructed by the patriarchy? Or are we just playing musical pedestals?" This made me wonder: Is patriarchy's main goal to preserve the family? If so, altering gender roles while maintaining the underlying sense of man's ultimate dominion could be one way that patriarchy has adapted/reacted to feminism. I'm inclined to say that we are playing musical pedestals. How can we rid ourselves of the pedestals once and for all? Isn't that what the feminist movement was supposed to have accomplished? It's obvious that our society is slowly transforming from family-centered to single-centered. Is the urge to marry and produce offspring just a holdover of our evolution that has not completely disappeared? Is that urge biological or societal? Would women marry if society didn't expect that "logical" conclusion? Would women want to have children if they didn't "know" that "biology is destiny"? Would women marry if they really knew how pervasively it might limit their options, dreams, and desires?

Regards, Rebecca

Note: There is an audio excerpt of ManifestA's authors at Salon.com http://www.salon.com/audio/nonfiction/2000/12/18/manifesta/index.html described as: In this excerpt, Baumgardner and Richards imagine what it would be like if the women's movement had never happened.

By Frances DiSalvo 12/26/00

In direct response to Tolley-Stokes summary of ManifestA, one of the things that most jumped out at me was the reference to the fact that "zines are mentioned exactly once" in Chapter 3. I am not sure I understand her argument–Richards and Baumgardner refer to zines often, such as on pages 91, 95, 97, 99, 100. They write that "the indies are inspiring–if you can find them–but can't compete with the mighty mainstream" (100). It seems to me that the authors are focusing on what can be done to use the mainstream media, since it can easily reach every village in the US and beyond.

Currently the media is very negative towards feminism, right down to printing it as "the f-word." I think that the media seeps into everyone's brains; keeping up with the media is a way to feel a part of a greater nation, it helps to keep the culture relatively consistent. The greater media's dialog with the US definitely conveys that feminists and feminism are "the enemy" (Baumgardner and Richards go through examples). When Baumgardner and Richards write about the untruths that the media try to convey in an effort to downplay the women's movement (or kill it once and for all, it would seem,) with headlines like "Is feminism dead?", they reassure us that we are not the only third-wavers feeling isolated and alone: "anytime you see yourself sitting in your own home saying 'Wait a minute,' it's likely that thousands of other women are doing the same. The trick is to use this disconnect between what the media wants and what feminists know to galvanize women toward greater activism" (94).

They also write about being a media revolutionary, which does not seem very unlike Tolley-Stokes' reference to Susan Jane Gilman's piece in Ms. for Oct/Nov 2000. She quotes Gilman as saying "maybe we need some 'on-call' girls. Some fabulous media sluts of our own. Why not forge an arsenal of well-coached sharpies who know how to stand and deliver in front of a camera in 8 seconds?" (69). Tolley-Stokes also writes that "3rd wave feminists within the media work at the lower levels." This is a problem in itself! I think that on a certain level Baumgardner and Richards were trying to get feminists' voices heard and taken seriously–to encourage 3rd wavers to step beyond the glass box that keeps women so on the periphery that their magazines are called zines, and their ideas are difficult to find, as Baumgardner and Richards determine.

*******

On the other hand, creating a separate space from the patriarchy-controlled media, such as with a zine, has its uses as well.

Sara Wehman 12/28/00

The opening of ManifestA made my eyebrows clench together in question. As the women were entering the house for the dinner party I was not seeing myself or my friends or my experience in third wave feminism played out in any of the characters. I thought though, this is a book about third wave feminists, so this is just a representation of some of the kinds of third wave feminists and the different scenes will elaborate as the book progresses. But in conclusion of the book, I was all dressed up with no place to go. While I have to say I was impressed with Baumgardner and Richard's sex-positive coverage of STD's and sexual satisfaction in the feminist community, I was equally disappointed at the presence (or absence) lesbians had in the book. It seemed as lesbians were mentioned as second wave leaders, or as bi/trans/queer leaders of the third wave, or as intermingled sparingly throughout feminist communities, but I did not see lesbian feminists presented as the positive force they are on college campuses and in the workplace and as large, solid part of the feminist community. Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on Baumgardner and Richards, because while they were lesbian friendly I feel they were not lesbian aware in the writing of their book.

Baumgardner and Richards describe third wave feminists as having benefited from being "Born with feminism simply in the water" (83). My Midwest childhood was dominated by right-wing Christian evangelism. The "F" word was unknown to me and despite my working mother and soccer team. Barbie was not questioned, a menstrual kit is still unknown, and the Newsboys CD and a Bible filled my stockings instead of Courtney Love's new CD and "Free to be. You and Me".  My feminist consciousness was only developed in my first college women's studies class– after I had developed a lesbian identity.

I would say feminism hasn't yet reached the water supply of my small conservative Ohio town and my third wave identity had nothing to do with the girl power movement. Once again I was left saying "But where am I in this book.?".

"How can Third Wave women negotiate their independence and still remain part of the family?" (219)

Ironically, the first two feminist books I read were Listen up: Voices from the Next Generation and Letters to a Young Feminist. Baumgardner and Richards praise the first as being a wonderful collection of third wave voices, which I agree with, but treat the second, Letters to a Young Feminist as having no purpose in developing a third-wave consciousness. Throughout the book they cite Chestler's book and second wave suggestions as something they wish to distance themselves from to develop the third wave. Maybe because feminism wasn't in my "water supply" and these things were still new, I saw Chestler's book as a stepping stone, or a passing of the baton, and see it as inspiration and a foundation to my life as a part of the new wave. The casting off of Chestler's book did not surprise me, as it added to the trend I've seen in my own third wave community to denounce second wave strongholds such as the Michigan Women's Music Festival, Andrea Dworkin, and Ms. I think Baumgardner and Richards's question "How can Third Wave women negotiate their independence and still remain part of the family?" needs to be looked at more, because I don't think they came up with a satisfactory answer, and since I don't see devouring our mothers as an appropriate response to this question, I don't think anyone else has come up with one either.

I will give Baumgardner and Richards two thumbs up and say I was very impressed at how well they discussed Kate Rolphie, Andrea Dworkin, and The Right in chapter seven. They presented all three with respect and fair criticism. The chapter on activism was also a very effective piece of the book because it gave solid solutions and presented the realities of activism: We don't have endless time, energy, and money. They critiqued the women's unpaid labor that has been volunteer activism throughout all of feminist history, but have also given great reasons for us to continue doing so until we are paid or no longer have to. The plain words "Activism requires thinking outside the box. Radicalism means going to the root. Social-justice work is the act of digging deep to the root of social problems" (303) were very effective and I would love to see them speak more on activism, because it seems to be something they have a great grasp of. There were some things I thought they were right-on with.

There were other things, like being Urban-centric, pretty hetero, and not being broad enough to include all the real faces of third wave feminism that made me hesitant to say "yes, that was an informative and effective book". I felt their mantra "Young women, feminism and the future" was in reality very urban middle class, twenty-something, working woman centered. Just as they criticized Chestler for talking down TO third wave women, I feel they left much to be desired when talking FOR the third wave.

Sara Wehman sew236@nyu.edu

Jennifer Baumgardner

I have read with great interest the reviews of the book I co-wrote with Amy Richards and thought I'd post back while Kim Wells is organizing her compendium of the reviews and writing her own. This is sort of long–sorry!

Since ManifestA came out, Amy and I have had feedback (in the form of reviews or letters) from literally hundreds of women and quite a few men. We have also been on a book tour that has taken us to a dozen cities, college campuses, and bookstores. While I probably enjoy the out-and-out fan letters and rave reviews the most, I learn the most from the critical and mixed responses, which yours have largely been. What I have had confirmed since the book's publication is that feminism is something women have wildly different definitions of. Although Amy and I tried to be comprehensive in terms of our own experience, there were many feminist issues we touched on too glancingly for many readers' comfort, or that we didn't privilege with a place in the book at all (i.e. lesbians and porn, as Tolley-Stokes mentions. FYI, neither of us have a strong opinion on porn–I'm sort of generally pro–so we didn't explore it with much gusto).

Amy and I were definitely trying to write a book that assumed feminism was "in the water,"–that is, women had benefited from it in their own lives and believed that men and women should have political, social, and economic equality–but we couldn't assume that the readers knew anything about feminist history or even the feminist analysis of issues such as date rape, sexual harassment, or housework. Therefore, we were always starting at the beginning of an issue, and required to give a lot of thumbnail sketch history, which I think left serious students of women's history feeling unsatisfied with the depth of the argument. However, it was part of our THEORY–and this is theory, although not written in an academic form–that the gap between third wave expectations (which are high and very feminist) and third wave consciousness (which is fairly low, due to the lack of women's history, especially radical history, that we are taught in school) needs to be bridged.

ManifestA was meant to be a bridge in another way, too. Amy and I felt that there was not adequate communication or respect between the generation roughly considered the second and the third waves. I don't think there were good vibes between the early suffragists of the 19th century and Alice Paul's generation, either, but the clash between their strategies and aesthetics is not often remarked upon. Because we had read books that spoke about what young women were thinking according to second wavers (and yes, Chesler's book was endemic of that sort of one-sided conversation to us), we wanted to respond openly (but, we maintain, respectfully) and let them know what we saw: How it felt to be in a room of 12 women over 50 complaining about how young women don't understand that abortion rights are being eroded. How it felt to write a zine or start a band and then here it wasn't a feminist act because it didn't look exactly how feminism looked in 1969.

I know that some people seem to find the Chesler reference startling (where we respond to her book Letters to a Young Feminist). I'm sure my feelings will evolve on the subject, but at the time of writing ManifestA, I was very frustrated that any criticism of her book by young women was written off as "oh, she's just an anti-feminist pawn." The tone and style of the book were, in my opinion, totally geared to a second wave reader–yet the book itself was directed at us. The intergenerational conversation can never begin if everything critical (yet honest) a younger woman says is written off as "anti-feminist."

Lastly, I wanted to comment on Sara Wehman's review. She writes: "It seemed that lesbians were mentioned as second wave leaders, or as bi/trans/queer leaders of the third wave, or as intermingled sparingly throughout feminist communities, but I did not see lesbian feminists presented as the positive force they are on college campuses and in the workplace and as large, solid part of the feminist community. . . while [B and R] were lesbian friendly I feel they were not lesbian aware in the writing of their book." When I was at college (1988-92) in Appleton, Wisconsin, lesbians were not a force on the campus. In fact, I remember only one lesbian. I didn't know then that I would eventually identify as bisexual and be in a three-year relationship with a woman (my current relationship). I talked to my girlfriend about the fact that lesbians who have read the book tend to feel it's written from a hetero-feminist perspective (I admit, I was perplexed by this critique). She agreed, basically, and it made me think that my perspective is actually a bisexual perspective–and that so little has been written about that (i.e. bisexual women are either assumed to be gay or straight, depending upon who they are sleeping with at the time) that a bisexual point of view appears "straight" to lesbians and "lesbian" to straights. Also, Amy and I tried to integrate lesbians and bi women into the text without identifying them by their sexuality (just as we did with women of color). The problem is, then, that people assume that everyone in the book is straight and white.

Wehman also felt unrepresented by The Dinner Party. That was something Amy and I really worried about, since obviously our friends aren't going to be the same as anyone else's closest friends. We didn't want it to be perceived as "These women *are* the six kinds of feminists Third Wave has." We just wanted to show how casual and organic feminist thinking is to our generation– to make the point that you don't have to go to a rally to be a feminist, you can go to your dinner table. If I went to a dinner party at Sara Wehman's, I would be likely to have an entirely different kind of feminist conversation and meet different women from the six at our party. And if I depicted a party at Sara Wehman's in the book, many readers would feel unrepresented, just as they did by our actual party.

Again, I really appreciated being part of Kim's organized round-table reviewing. Perhaps we will all meet in person some day (and I look forward to your review, Kim!) XO

My Last Two Cents: By Frances DiSalvo

In the December 17 New York Times Book Review, Ann Hulbert characterizes ManifestA as a "jumble of a book." If Hulbert means that the book is disorganized and tends to jump from subject to subject, then I must agree (Hulbert's parenthesis that follow the typification skew her meaning for me. . .). It seems to me that all of the Women Writers reviewers, so far, are looking for a comprehensive summary and call to action; a something that women of our generation can look to for a lucid reproduction of "where we are now."

The way I see it, feminist ideas, ideals, and applications into other realms of thought (such as postcolonialism), make a straightforward definition of any-wave feminism somewhat enigmatic. But I think that Baumgardner and Richards create a better example of a lack of self-actualization on the part of third-wavers. (Bear with me, this is a brand new idea.)

Hulbert quotes 'someone' as referring to "the idea that you can change your world" as what Baumgardner and Richards and second-waver Susan Estrich can "concur on." The fact that Hulbert tries to hold Baumgardner and Richards up against the second waver Estrich, is in itself problematic, since it attests to Baumgardner's point about "How it felt to write a zine or start a band and then here it wasn't a feminist act because it didn't look exactly how feminism looked in 1969".

Back to the point – "the idea that you can change your world" may be what I am observing in our reviews. Perhaps changing one's world is still just an idea to many third-wavers. This is what I see, and it is what I think generates reviews such as those that express disappointment that Baumgardner and Richards didn't get feminism down pat in "my" community. I may have had a similar childhood to more people than I know – parents who are ultra-conservative, growing up feeling as though there are no role models that actually mirror what I value. . . (Baumgardner and Richards try to connect their current success as feminists to childhood experiences, a formula that spells DOOM if I were to take the implications whole-heartedly.)

There seems to be this prevalent idea that we want someone else to define what the third-wave means to us so that we can then find a way to fit ourselves into the (pre-existing) picture. Personally, I think that Baumgardner and Richards definitely failed to define my feminist world, and I went into the book searching for a definition for two reasons – first, I am currently battling to solidify my feminist ideals on the home and work front and do not have the tools. "What am I doing wrong?," I wonder, and "What am I missing out on?" Second, I want to know "Where are all the "other" feminists?" which so far I am convinced is a bogey-term intended to scare us into thinking everything is fine, no more change is necessary. . . ManifestA did not supply these answers, despite the optimistic subtitle of the book: "Young Women, Feminism, and the Future."

Yet at the same time, where are the reviewers and Baumgardner and Richards coming from that we feel the need to create One Homogeneous Critical Mass? So women's history is lacking, and even nonexistent in some places? – recreate it! So what that we do not agree on a set definition for feminism? Many feminists will agree that the definition is bound to change, as equality advances to the point that physical characteristics are no longer relevant. . . (when being female is no longer more than a physical characteristic, that is) –so get over it! It seems that feminist liberation theory – the activism, the ManifestAs, the translation into other schools of thought – is a fit of stops and starts. Are second-wavers done? Have they advanced all they want to advance, now that they are established and comfortably settled? Are they seeking to maintain their power, even as they criticize the next generation for not doing enough?

I am leery that the same tools that have gotten us thus far will also contribute to our downfall as a movement, before the movement has truly done enough. I fear that we are pointing too much energy into the argument of 'what the second-wavers want.'

And I also think this is compounded by the phenomenon that our generation, feminist or otherwise, seems to be cultivating an attitude of apathy and inactivism. . . Which has manifested itself this time through the search to find one homogeneous feminism. It's like "See, not even the feminists know what the feminists want, so why bother?"

Frances DiSalvo

Lisa Johnson 1/16/01

RANT

I was never any good at those cheerleader pyramids in seventh grade – too small to be a base and too afraid of heights to be anywhere near the top (remember the pony mount?) – but as I prepare to review ManifestA, I find myself wanting to be better at building on the strengths of feminist writing rather than zeroing in on gaps or biases. Picking each other apart seems to me at this point to be less about correcting eurocentric viewpoints or heterosexist assumptions (two significant movements within feminism since the eighties) and more about wasting time and energy.

Stalling.

I would like to suggest that it's time for young feminists to get busy building on each other, using reviews and roundtables to highlight what we like in feminist writing, and taking gaps or biases as signals of where to begin our own writing. I don't mean to shush feminists with additional or alternative perspectives – exactly the opposite, in fact – I'm saying we can all keep waiting for someone to get our stories right, or we can step up and write them ourselves.

Feminist heterosexuality, campus lesbians, rural third wave America – whatever has not been written about adequately is up to us to address.

It's hard to swallow, this responsibility, since many of our generation still feel like little girls on some level, deferring to mentors as voices of feminist authority, no full-fledged theory to offer (yet). What I'm realizing is, this is all okay! This is how it starts – here – a group of girls given a microphone, developing our positions by speaking them, not necessarily beforehand.

I take what Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards say of other strongly criticized third wave writers as a useful description of their own accomplishment:

Roiphe, Wurtzel, and Wolf, for example, clearly didn't write the perfect feminist book in their still-young careers. The bottom line is that they each wrote feminist books. If the movement is to gain some speed, we can't stop ourselves at each flaw . . . that tempts us to chuck the entire book. (258)

I applaud Jennifer's brave and brash personal introduction, as well:

Because I said "Why suffer?," I didn't psych myself out by thinking that to write a book means one has to lock oneself in a tiny apartment for a year, sleep all day, chain-smoke American Spirits, and write in a paranoid blaze during the vampire hours. Because Amy and I said "Why suffer?," we went to Cuba, organized intergenerational readings, attended sample sales, and wrote a fucking book-all in the service of keeping joyful while figuring out what's wrong with the patriarchy and the movement. (xx)

She doesn't submit to the "please like me" mechanism in women (52); can we allow this team of writers whatever imperfections accrue to such leaps into the feminist abyss?

REVIEW

"ManifestA's call to arms is simple: find your feminism and get to work."
–Anastasia Higginbotham, Women's Review of Books (October 2000)

Returning to the idea of bringing to light what I like in feminist writing, I will focus my review on the thread of ManifestA that interests me most: sex & feminism. I should begin by revealing my professional investment in this subject. My own book of third wave feminism will come out this spring from Four Walls, Eight Windows, a volume of essays by "Gen X feminists" on sexual identity, relationships, and various sex acts, titled Jane Sexes It Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire. ManifestA makes several brief gestures in two intertwined directions which I pursue in more detail in my collection – heterosexual romance as an arena of ongoing unexamined inequality between the sexes, and sexual desire as it conflicts (or seems to conflict) with feminist politics. I began the project intending to focus on "problem" desires within feminism (s-m, marriage, porn, sex work, penetration, etc.) but ended up also addressing all heterosexual desire as a problem for young women.

Jennifer and Amy pinpoint what I see as the central cause of young women's frustration and impatience with feminism–"the 'myth of liberation'"– which they define as a "conflict between the feminist rhetoric in the culture and the resistance to it in private life" (213). Examples are abundant enough that I can draw randomly from the last few days. I saw a snippet of Anna and the King on HBO this weekend, and was struck by the glib incorporation of feminist platitudes about women as equals to men, disturbed not only by the silly transcolonial historical fantasy of a white woman showing a man of color what's what by standing up to him and winning his love, but by the way feminist arguments about power differentials are reduced to saccharine, therefore marketable and depoliticized, soundbytes:

Ling Bai/TUPTIM: [the king's concubine] I wish to learn English to please the king.
Jody Foster/ANNA: I hope you wish to learn English to please yourself as well.

I picture audiences across the U.S. nodding sagely, relishing their enlightened understanding that women should see themselves as equal to men, never questioning whether there's more to equality than women choosing to perceive themselves as such. Pop culture images like this one create the illusion that feminism is pervasive, in the water, a given, while inequality continues to push even the most well-meaning enlightened couple into awkward hierarchy.

The truth is, "women rarely expect – or voice their expectations of – equality in the game of love" (29-30). Deference is so ingrained in our every emotional fiber, that many (most?) women do not even recognize the ways they defer throughout each day. Frankly, I'm taking a sabbatical from romance until I get a better handle on my own urge (and corresponding resentment) to defer to the man in my life.

Jennifer and Amy created a laugh-out-loud moment of recognition for me in their discussion of who can be a feminist, and who (feels like they) can't. I am one of the women who "shave[s], pluck[s], and wax[es]" (56). Despite my savvy feminist consciousness, I participate in the beauty culture; I even enjoy a lot of it. I couldn't agree more, therefore, with their assertion that "feminism wants you to be whoever you are – but with a political consciousness" (56-57). As a twenty-something feminist professor of college English, I've thought and written about what it means to perform the young female self as a sexual or erotic creature in the cerebral world of academia, and I came to the same conclusion as the ManifestA authors: "not being allowed to wear a miniskirt is the same as being forced to wear a miniskirt" (140-41). Politics need not cramp our style or rein in our little girl excesses, our playful side, or the pleasures of feminine adornment.

Further, even for the hardline feminists who perceive make-up and heels as evidence of a woman's "false consciousness" – the idea that she's been conditioned to desire these feminine accouterments but that they are really bad for her – Jennifer and Amy make the practical-minded point that "women would make different choices in a nonsexist world, but the point of a pro-woman line is to acknowledge the barriers around which women must maneuver rather than to blame the women themselves" (96).

ManifestA reminds young women that consciousness-raising remains central to feminist politics. The necessity of speaking to each other, and of making it safe for each other to reveal the raw spots, is an example of how feminism is both taken for granted and yet incompletely executed. The ideas sound true and right, even passe, but they are nevertheless far from widely enacted. On consciousness-raising, they write:

not only is a girl with an STD or an unintended pregnancy not alone, she is one of millions. It's this acknowledgement that turns the political wheel. . . . That's why women have long been radicalized by telling their secrets to each other. In fact, we have noticed that if you tell someone you have an STD or have had an abortion, she usually reveals some "horrible" secret from her life (28)

Telling secrets is a feminist resistance to the public/private divide that isolates women and individualizes our experience, obscuring its place within a larger pattern of sexual injustice.

CONCLUSION

Jennifer & Amy, quoting Carol Gilligan, challenge young feminists to continue the quest to join political critique with utopic yearning and emotional sustenance along the way: "The hardest place to go with other women is to joy, strength, and energy, because to go there you are now standing on the other side of loss" (200). Many of us are grieving the loss of growing up with feminism in the water and then discovering, against everything we've been taught, that inequality not only still exists but has been structuring our lives all along. Building on each other's work, helping disseminate feminist writing and producing our own as well, is one way to get to the other side of loss, and to generate joy despite remaining inequalities.

POSTSCRIPT

I'm not sure how to fit this part in with the rest of my review, but Jennifer's response to critiques of ManifestA includes two points I want to affirm. The first one is her position on Phyllis Chesler's book, Letters to a Young Feminist. While I concede there may have been a better way to critique this book, for instance, a point-by-point analysis of its condescending age-ism and generationally-bound perspective on activism and inequality, I nevertheless jotted, "Hell yes!" in the margins beside the words,

Though a maternal tone may have been necessary to resonate with her generation, a 'to-do' (and what not to do) list from a 'mother' is a recipe for resistance from a younger generation already fluent in feminism. She offered insights from her experiences but forgot the essential ingredient that made Letters to a Young Poet so valuable: Rilke was responding to an actual person; Chesler was lecturing to her idea of a young woman. (86)

I personally found Chesler's tone very alienating and presumptuous. Furthermore, ManifestA in no way adopts an across the board anti-second-wave perspective, providing useful historical information about Helen Gurley Brown and Shulamith Firestone as our "sister blowjob queens," in other words, as second wavers with pro-sex visions amenable to third wave positions and interests.

The second point I want to affirm is Jennifer's response to criticisms of ManifestA's alleged heterosexism. She writes, "it made me think that my perspective is actually a bisexual perspective – and that so little has been written about that (i.e. bisexual women are either assumed to be gay or straight, depending upon who they are sleeping with at the time) that a bisexual point of view appears 'straight' to lesbians and 'lesbian' to straights." As a bisexual woman myself, I can say her description sounds accurate to me. I characterize ManifestA's perspective as bisexual based on the fact that the book addresses the problems of heterosexual inequality among young people, and it also mentions lesbians and other "alternative" lifestyles, in addition to sex-positive positions on STD's and female sexual freedom and pleasure, as if all this were the norm, or at least not abnormal. I haven't fully fleshed out this idea, but I would direct interested readers to the scholarly field of bisexual epistemologies and the anthology, Bisexuality: A Critical Reader, edited by Merl Storr.

Lisa Johnson ljohnson@westga.edu