Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:55:11.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feminism's Quest for Common Desires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2010

Lori J. Marso
Affiliation:
Union College, Schenectady, New York. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

One attraction of “choice” feminism has been its refusal to judge the diverse desires of women. Yet for feminism to retain its political vision as a quest for social justice, we must continue difficult conversations concerning how acting on our individual desires impacts the lives of others. In this essay, I argue that feminists can acknowledge women's diverse desires while forging a meaningful feminist community. I make this argument by considering feminism's relationship to time, and particularly how women's diverse desires are read in each moment in time. If we abandon the generational model, wherein each new generation of feminists improves upon the last, for a genealogical perspective where women recognize our feminist origins and empathize with the diverse struggles of other women, we might reaffirm social justice for the community as central to feminist politics. To articulate this possibility, I turn to the work of Simone de Beauvoir to explain her discovery of how her embodiment as a woman and her relationship to femininity becomes a way of grounding a feminist politics. Recognizing the “demands of femininity” in other women's lives allows us to affirm feminist community while retaining the capacity to make judgments that realize social justice as a feminist goal.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beauvoir, Simone de. 1952. The Second Sex. Trans. Parshley, H.M.. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Ezekiel, Judith. 2002. Feminism in the Heartland. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Michaele L. 2010. Choice Feminism and the Fear of Politics. Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Estelle B. 2002. No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Henry, Astrid. 2004. Not My Mother's Sister: Generational Conflict and Third Wave Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kruks, Sonia 2006. “Reading Beauvoir With and Against Foucault.” In Simone de Beauvoir's Political Thinking, ed. Marso, Lori and Moynagh, Pat. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Marso, Lori 2006. Feminist Thinkers and the Demands of Femininity: The Lives and Work of Intellectual Women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milan Women's Bookstore Collective 1987. Sexual Difference: A Theory of Social-Symbolic Practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Moi, Toril 1999. What is a Woman? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Purvis, Jennifer 2004. Grrrrls and Women Together in the Third Wave. NWSA Journal 16 (3): 93123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Snyder-Hall, R. Claire. 2010. Third-Wave Feminism and the Defense of ‘Choice.’ Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 255–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Carolyn Kay. 1986. Landscape for a Good Woman. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.Google Scholar
Stone, Alison 2007. “On the Genealogy of Women: A Defense of Anti-Essentialism.” In Third Wave Feminism: A Critical Exploration, ed. Gillis, Stacy, Howie, Gillian, and Munford, Rebecca. Expanded 2d ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion 1997. Intersecting Voices. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar