Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:27 am Post subject: "Flappers" reading
So what'd y'all think?
It sounded to me a lot like what happened after second wave feminism (that we read about earlier) like how in the 80's there was a backlash and lots of women decided to focus on themselves and their personal beauty enhancement than for the further rights of the sisterhood.
I also thought it was interesting how the NAWSA (reinvented in the form of the LWV) continued to fight with the NWP even after they've both won suffrage. It really pissed me off how the NWP continued to exclude Black and minority women..
I thought this reading was really interesting. I think Olivia's right that organized feminism died down in the 20's as the result of the crazy consumer culture that turned many women into individuals. The media must have overwhelmed women with its push for female beauty, sex appeal, and domicility. Even today, women feel pressured by the false, sexist ideals to which they are held by the movies, TV shows, music, and magazines....so how must it have felt when the whole phenomenon was new? In addition, the advent of cosmetics allowed women to chase after unrealistic standards of beauty, further disillusioning women. In contrast, however, I think that there was a sort of feminism in the ability of women to have confidence, "experimenting" with new lifestyles. While women did not want to be defined as promiscous, they also didn't want to seem prudish. Because this was the era in which premarital sex became common, I think that it was the first time in American history were women's sexuality really came to the forefront of the social and cultural consciousness. Did the recongition of women as having sexual desires of their own represent a growing respect for them as human beings?
Luckily, I'm only focusing on one word: individualism (individuality, individual, etc)
I thought the multiple contexts in which that word was applied was simply incredible. Long before CSW, I was under the impression that being considered an "individual" was good. "Be your own person.." All that shit. Yet I think if anything the emergence of "individualism" in the 1920's coupled with its direct link to consumerism was more bad than good for women in the United States at this time. Individuality was definitely good in terms of being able to express oneself through their dress, make-up and the company they chose to keep. Yet women were told through the booming appearance of direct marketing that buying these products was the only way to achieve this goal of individuality.
However, because all women who bought these products were doing so with the intent of achieving this goal of social separatism, any genuine sense of "individuality" was ultimately lost. Granted, adolescent and college women were taking a seemingly radical leap away from their foremothers, but only through different means of the same oppression as their mothers. Yes they were going to college and finding forms of work in the labor force, but the consumption of these products sold by male-owned only further confined them to meaningless work to keep busy in lieu of tending to a family, or else to maintain a husband's sexual (and perhaps emotional) investment in her as a wife. The fact that the beginning of consumerism and the unfortunate "American life style" hit women so hard was something I had never really thought about.
My other major point of interest, also linked to individualism, was the new market of real female competition. Sure, in earlier generations most women desired a husband and had likely prospects. Yet in the 1920's, "independent women" didn't actually translate into "independent of men" but instead, "independent of other women." Using social gatherings and work as husband hunting grounds with make up and clothes as means of lures, female comradary was quickly deteriorating. With "science" simultaneously dictating what was appropriate and "normal" versus deviant behaviors, the newly identified lesbian population began being socially sequestered. Due to the intense separation of men and women and the private and public realm, women had a long history of bonding deep, powerful and often sensual relationships with other women. Now, with society becoming freakishly hetero-normative and afraid of same-sex connection, women were being further told by men ("scientists") that this bonding behavior wasn't normal.
Between consumerism of goods and subsequently husband competition as well as the separation of women more attracted to other women than men, men were driving huge stakes between women and disintegrating all the earlier ideas of sisterhood and common bond. Men created a climate in which two contradictory ideas "individuality and normality" made women winning simply impossible.
In this way I think the second wave of feminism wasn't really a wave of feminism at all but instead just a platform for men to make women (literally) more visible in addition to unavoidable need for female labor during war time. My question to pose now would be, have the concepts of individuality and normality, all under the umbrella of consumerism, really changed for young women today? [/u]
Omg, Hannah, I was just going to talk about that. I don’t think at the beginning they were seen any better at all. I think the whole idea of women having and enjoying sex was shocking in any matter to the world. I really enjoyed this reading because it gave me more thoughts on how far women came along. The whole idea of how the ideas of sex began to change really helped liberate women more and I felt so empowered after that section. But yea, I also didn’t like the fact that black women were still be excluding.
The most powerful quote in the reading I felt was, “Perhaps new freedoms and new attitudes of the twenties represented a necessary experimentation with individualism especially on the part of young women. Yet they were shaped and bounded by economic and cultural forces to such a degree that in retrospect some of these freedoms seem illusory.” (195)
Question: Do you think the change of sexual behavior helped liberate women more or give men more ways to try to control them?
I enjoyed this reading, it was simple and interesting. While reading, I originally thought that the women were gaining power through the embracing of femininity, but as the reading progressed, it seemed as though they were even more submissive. I only say "more" because previously, it was just a social expectation to live a certain way, but their "rebellious" behavior had an ultimate goal of marriage. The consumer aspect of the reading was interesting, marketing to housewives, but this whole thing was considered "rebellious"? I was also interested in the different ideas of marriage, rather than the previous reasons of dependency and expectation, the new idea was marriage for love and companionship. So how do these ideas fit together? How can they all be marrying for love, they're sexualized consumers for the ultimate goal of marriage. Also, the author didn't really express any opinion towards the idea of replacing servants with electricity, or what effects doing that had. what do you guys thing that was about/how it fit into the overall housewife we see after that?
I agree with Laurel in what she had to say. In terms of the electricity replacing the slaves, I think that this statement further puts down slaves. I think that it makes them seem like a simple, temporary solution that was easily replaced, when, in fact, that is not the case. Also, I think that by replacing slaves with an object, it makes them seem like nothing more than "things."
I found it interesting on page 179 when it said "women were on their own, individuals yet still defined and limited by their gender." i was trying to separate what Evans was saying here and this is as far as i got: women were gaining freedom and were being exposed to a wider variety of jobs, but at the same time, they were still seen as inferior to men. Anyone want to help me with this?
I compared a lot of the "norms" for women in the 20s to how they are now and I realized that a lot of things are the same. We are still exposed to ads that grab our attention by playing on our fears. In addition, our culture continues to emphasize pleasure, sexuality, and individualism.
My question is: On page 192 it says: "Furthermore, when the courts made it clear that they would not permit such legislation for all workers, reformers prevailed with the argument that women, like children, needed special protections because of their physical weakness as well as the social necessity of protecting future motherhood."
How do you feel about this excuse? Was it fair for women to say this while they were also arguing against it?
So... let's see I found the reading rather peculiar. While the major points brought up were fascinating, I had trouble truly believing them. The notion that feminine relationships were all but obliterated is difficult for me to believe, we continue to live in a sex focused culture, one in which women and men are expected to remain attractive and independent, but same-sex relationships do not seem to be in the desperate straights described in the reading. While it may be that due to women's social position in the 19th century they were forced to form an incredible cohesive unit, I do not see the harm in an increase in the expectations of individual's partners to fulfill many aspects of one's social existence. It is not that I disagree wit the author so much as fail to understand the harmful implication of such a change. In addition I felt as if the author made consumerism (a state which I myself find less than attractive) out to be an evil simply in and of itself. Perhaps I have simply failed entirely in reading, but I do not understand what arguments the author puts forth which demonstrate that the increased use of household appliances damaged the position of women in society.
Finally I do not understands how the conformism masquerading as individuality present in the twenties is any worse than the true conformism of earlier decades, decades in which conformism was strictly and brutally enforced through complex social systems and ostracization.
If anyone can lucidify any aspect of the slew of confusion I have just spat forth, poor benighted hardy would be most grateful.
I also really enjoyed this reading. The transitions seemed really well done. Anywho, to the actual content:
I thought the part that focused on working and office-life to be fascinating. The office "represented a marriage market rife with opportunities" and the relationship between the boss and worker could be like a husband and wife. When women started joining the workforce the office turned into a "public environment in which males and females were accorded separate and unequal roles analogous to their traditional roles in the home" (183). The author spoke as though this sort of thing was totally in the past, but to this day most secretaries are women, and still do things such as organize the schedule and get coffee. I also found it interesting that the more formally responsibilities were defined the more things can turn to a hierarchy. Evans didn't go quite that far, but she said "Lines of responsibility became more formal and hierarchical as proliferating agencies expanded administrative responsibilities thereby diminishing the informal bonds of mutual dependence and cooperation. And, increasingly, men were likely to move into the upper echelons of social welfare bureaucracies..." (191). Based on what we've talked about this in class, I wrote in my active reading that formality=hierarchies which then= patriarchy.
Why is it that men repeatedly seem to have more power? Do people think it is simply because of society, or are they naturally more aggressive and assertive in general?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
