Judith Lorber's "Gender Inequalities" Feminist Theory Anthology - A Really Really Long Rant About Why This Book is Problematic for Historicizing Feminist Thought and Finding Contemporary Contribution

I think a good place to start is Lorber’s outline for defining and characterizing Radical Feminism. Though the outlines introducing each section throughout the book are supposed to be just that – outlines, which break down and simplify the content and key points – there is such a thing as oversimplification. Oversimplification occurs in an outline through definitive statements. I.E. “sexual exploitation in pornography and prostitution” is an identified source of gender inequality for radical feminists and further, “anti-pornography campaigns” are part of their politics for ending gender oppression (121). Hmmm… I’m pretty sure not all radical feminists are anti-porn, just as I’m sure that not all feminists are radical or anti-porn. Specifically, I’m pretty sure there are some radical feminists who specifically identify themselves as sex radical feminists or feminists who identify as radical pro-sex feminists (this is not to say that pro-sex feminists cannot be anti-porn because they can, in fact, be both). Lorber makes an even greater oversimplification with her characterization of “third-wave feminism” at the end of the book. But I will get to that later!

I’m not going to lie, Lorber’s outlines are a bit of a turn-off. Sure, she is trying to explain what different strands of feminist theory are and how they work, but I’m not so sure she is doing an effective job of that. Do we have to understand feminist theory as dichotomous and explicitly individual, or can we explore various theories as intersections of feminist thought?

Truthfully, I think a better understanding of various feminist theories and approaches to eradicating gender inequality is possible without the outlines. If not for the fact that Lorber tends to make definitive statements in the outlines and vastly oversimplifies the way in which the various theories work and overlap – if not for the fact that she separates feminist thought into neat little piles – then for the fact that she does not seem acknowledge that these piles are not piles at all, I find it difficult to appreciate Lorber’s book in its entirety. Further, I find it entirely ineffective for providing an appropriate foundation for understanding histories of feminist thought.

In her prologue, Lorber mentions that she wishes to show “how the various theories have diverged and converged in the second wave of feminism as a political movement” (ix). Does she actually do this at any point in the book? Did she intend on doing this through outlines, segmenting, and a couple of articles for each section? She briefly explores how the theories relate to each other in her conclusion but spends much of her time discussing that state of current feminist theory. Sure, the two relate to each other, and the theories and articles she presents in this book serve to contextualize the present. However, she doesn’t effectively, if at all, discuss the present! Again, more on that later. What’s important here is that Lorber states that she wants to show how the theories can blur, yet she continues to separate them into nice little boxes as much as possible. She even includes texts that demonstrate this grey area, but she never discusses this. For example, in Morgan’s new adaption of “Goodbye to All That”, she concludes by saying “Can we women find [our voice]? Can we do this for ourselves? ‘Our President, Ourselves!’” (131). Morgan asserts that the strength of women and gender equality lies in having a woman president. This is entirely liberal feminist, but she is classified as a radical feminist in Lorber’s book. At another point in Morgan’s article, she seems to bash women for not voting for Hillary Clinton (129). This would lend itself nicely to cultural feminism (a branch of radical feminism, but not radical feminism itself). Bullet two of “Redstockings Manifesto” states that “every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively” (124). While it is possible this was meant to mean women collectively, the previous statements lead me to believe that they meant men and women must work together to solve their individual relationship problems as a social whole because the individual problems are a manifestation of the whole. Further, the manifesto states “we call on all men to give up their male privileges and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own” (125). Both of these statements suggest a need for men to join the struggle; they suggest a need for male feminism and demonstrate another blurred line in feminist theories. These things are only problematic if there is no recognition of blurred lines.

Lorber situates her book as being dedicated to the various feminist theories that were debated and converging in “second-wave” feminism. She opens her book by contextualizing the “waves” as a brief overview. “First-wave” texts are not included, as she states. If the book is only concerned with the “second-wave”, why is the third even mentioned?

Lorber states that she wishes to show the contributions that feminism has made to achieving gender equality, as well as what she believes is left to be done (ix). If you’re going to show what is left to be done, wouldn’t it be effective to include more “third-wave” theory…you know, to show what IS being done? “Third-wave feminism” is certainly included in her book, but in a section all by itself entitled “Third-Wave Feminism”. Why is it separated? Why does it exist as a separate MONOLITHIC feminist theory rather than as a section divided up into contemporary perspectives on the feminist theories included throughout the rest of the book? Why isn’t it divided up into perceived newer contemporary theories or approaches like “riot grrrl”, “pro-sex feminists”, “men feminists”, and “black feminists”? Has this generation of feminists not equally contributed to feminist theory or feminism in general? Is it not considered an equal component of feminist movement? Is “third-wave feminism” just considered a generation of feminists, unlike the other “waves” which tend to be understood as generations of feminists…who have created and contributed to different strands of feminist thought?

I think Lorber would say yes, the “third-wave” is just a generation of feminists devoid of real thought and contribution. It appears, to Lorber, that “third-wave” is insignificant with a lot of potential. She seems to acknowledge that there is work to be done and that feminism is still alive to complete this work, but she doesn’t seem to understand contemporary feminism or find it appropriate. She wants to show what is left to be done, but she is she really completing that task? By stopping at “third-wave feminism”, isn’t she merely assuming that absolutely no work has been done since the second? Further, by characterizing “third-wave” as monolithic and in a radically oversimplified way - claiming that “third-wavers” see completely different sources of gender inequality, rather than seeing the “typical ones” and then some – she is CLEARLY stating that contemporary feminist theory is off target. She only includes articles that address issues of intergenerational feminism, where to go from here, and contemporary inclusion rather than articles that are addressing the current political and social issues that this generation faces, such as reproductive justice, balancing work and family, effective forms of activism, overcoming stigma associated with “the f word”, marriage equality, gender expression equality, sexual agency, and sex education. Where are those articles?! Where are the articles from the topics she lists on her outline of what “third-wave feminism” is? Further, why is Kimmel included in a section entirely separate from “third-wave” when men’s issues are mentioned in the “third-wave” outline? Why is he, and other authors, included in the main body of the book (that is dedicated to “second-wave” according to Lorber)? Why can’t he be considered a part of the current generation? He is a part of the current generation!!!

Besides those two articles addressing current tensions with history in the “third-wave” section, the only writings that Lorber includes that were written during the “third-wave” are articles written by women considered to be part of the second like Morgan, and Mohanty and Butler who are really more on the cusp, and people who are writing in the now but are so sophisticated and academic that they get the privilege of being associated with serious theory and the “second-wave”, like Kimmel. Why do we need a “second-waver”, like Morgan, to talk about contemporary issues? Not at all to say that they can’t, but why allow them to speak for this generation rather than with it? Why marginalize younger voices who are the up and coming future of feminism – the ones who are entering feminism and trying to find their voices – while valorizing the older voices? Doesn’t it make sense to have a balance between the two? You know, let them speak together????

Lorber states that “third-wave feminism is both a continuation of and a break with second-wave feminisms” (283). She goes on to briefly discuss this feminism in what I believe to be a highly appropriate and culturally sensitive way. So why does her book do the exact opposite? Further, why does she contradict herself throughout the book by saying things like “third-wave feminism, which also emerged in the 1990s, is a movement of younger feminists who grew up with feminism…they reject the idea that women are oppressed by men…they assume that gender equality is the norm” (4)??? She makes grand overarching, and inaccurate, claims about “third-wave feminism” and then refutes them with more accurate and diverse claims.

I feel that this is the theme of Lorber’s book: make a grandiose, definitive statement about a particular group of feminists, refute the claim either with your explanation or with the article you included to demonstrate that group of feminists, and then leave everyone confused as to how you can go on and on contradicting yourself while attempting to demonstrate feminist diversity. She does this with the Radical Feminists, the Marxist and Socialist Feminists, the Liberal Feminists, the “Third-Wave Feminists”, and I’m sure she’ll continue to do it with the other feminists. The confusion and overarching claims make it exceptionally hard to take Lorber seriously or appreciate the work she has laid out for us.

I think it all boils down to questions of production: Why did Lorber pick the people she did? Are there better choices? Why isn’t Adrienne Rich included in Lesbian Feminism? She is, after all, considered the mother of Lesbian Feminism, isn’t she? What about Judy Grahn, who is close behind? Why wasn’t Angela Davis in the Socialist Feminists? Why are some feminist theories left out, like Cultural Feminism and Ecofeminism? It seems that Lorber wanted to paint a biased picture of second-wave, devoid of truly radical theories (minus Redstockings, which is really the only radical text that is included). She didn’t even include the radical texts of Robin Morgan and instead, put in a newer writing of hers relating to the last presidential election. Why isn’t “third-wave” treated as a generation of feminists with various contributions to feminist thought rather than as an overarching theory or a monolithic generation devoid of theory? Why aren’t more of the issues laid out in her outline included in the texts she chose for that section? Why does she start by saying she wants to show the contributions and differences of “second-wave feminism”, move to slandering the “third-wave”, contextualize the histories of feminist theories that “third-wave” rests on, put “third-wave” in opposition to the second (in the sectioning off, and in the limited article choices), and then minimize the “third-wave” immediately before saying that “third-wave” contributions of diversity and multiplicity have strengthened the current period of feminist movement?

She makes no sense to me!!!!

Needless to say, Lorber’s book has entirely distracted me from fully absorbing the individual contributions to feminism – the individual author’s, their individual perspectives, and their individual writings. I think these essays would better show the complexities, convergences, and divergences of situated feminisms if they stood alone. In categorizing the essays without acknowledgement of the ways in which they do jump back and forth between categories, Lorber creates a dichotomy out of the theories. It’s challenging to see them in conversation with each other because the format encourages me to see them in opposition to each other. Bottom line – Lorber needs to stop categorizing EVERYTHING. Perhaps the one thing she effectively does is demonstrate that categorizing everything clearly does not work. Most importantly, if Lorber intended on discussing where we have been and where we have left to go, perhaps we could answer her question for her by suggesting that we need to move away from categorizing and pitting feminists against feminists, individuals against individuals, theories against theories. We need to move away from these separations and encourage recognition of intersections, dialogue, and cooperation.