Posted by xuli on 2006-02-10 09:44:58
Post Subject:
But as for 'in the early days'- I'm sorry, but I don't see many shoutouts to poor women now, either. I don't see class being adressed in any appreciable way. I haven't seen proominent Third Wavers write about racism and race with the view that some people don't have the same needs as others. ... And I still say that an objective glance shows that most of the women doing the writing, photographing, and all of that are white and come from middle class families, and have the attitudes that go along with that profile for the most part. That's not a stereotype. That's a walk through the bookstore.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. My point was that all this is true, but that I just am not interested in pseudo-feminism that doesn't address all of these issues simultaneously. And that I think that in many ways, characterizing someone like Naomi Wolf as the face of feminism today contributes to the invisibility of woman of color feminists, queer feminists and working class feminists who are producing amazing work and aren't getting recognized.
I don't know though. I have to say I don't find the Third Wave all that interesting, and I don't read a lot of Third Wave writers or pay attention to a lot of what the Third Wave is doing. And conversations that end up stuck on the Third Wave, like it's the only possible feminism out there, make me cranky! Because the Third Wave does have all the characteristics you cited -- white, middle class, and extremely limited in focus.
