TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/030992/0309632.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 10.4 KB | 242 lines

                                                                                IDEAS, Page 56

COVER STORIES

How to Revive a Revolution


From two vantages comes a shared view about bucking the backlash

By NANCY GIBBS and JEANNE MCDOWELL/BERKELEY, Susan Faludi and
Gloria Steinem


    The crowd at Cody's Books in Berkeley came to see Gloria
Steinem. But when the owner announced that surprise guest Susan
Faludi was there to introduce her, the audience cheered for a
hometown hero. After the speeches, both authors sat down with
TIME, and they continued their joint interview last week in New
York City.


    Q. In dealing with the backlash against feminism, is it
best to fight it head on or to repackage the feminist message,
perhaps talking about "family" instead of "women's" issues?

    Steinem: That's a mistake. It renders women invisible.
This is a revolution, not a public relations movement. You have
to speak to the constituency. If you say "family issues" to
most women, it's like going back to the past -- and feeling
guilty again. To make changes, you need new language. For
instance, we could say "families" to honor more than one form,
and inspire hope of change by saying "democratic families." But
even so, we can't say to women, "You don't exist on your own."

    Faludi: All family issues should not be women's issues.
They should be human issues. The idea that women exist only
when they're attached to children is the notion that feminism
can somehow be repackaged as "family rights." In the past few
weeks, there have been stories about the "myth of sisterhood,"
which attacked feminists for not focusing enough on the family.
One writer said to succeed, feminists need to look at women's
issues from a "children's perspective." Why should we? We're
adults. What bothers me is the implication that women have to
prove they are good mothers before they can ask for anything
else, and the only way they can ask for something is through
children.


    Q. Since most women today embrace the goals of the women's
movement, why are so many of them reluctant to embrace the
feminist label?

    Steinem: Women have two problems with the label. The first
is that people don't know what it means. If they look it up in
the dictionary and see that feminism just means the full
economic, social and political equality of women, they'll agree.
But the second is that people do know what it means. If you say,
"I'm for equal pay," that's a reform. But if you say, "I'm a
feminist," that's equality for all females -- a transformation
of society. As you get older, you realize you might as well say
"feminist." Any term with the same meaning will be opposed too,
and besides, if you're a woman, the only alternative is being
a masochist.


    Q. Is that realization the result of countless headlines
announcing the "death of feminism"?

    Steinem: That's always the way change is dealt with. The
first big "death of feminism" headline was in 1969. Then the
Equal Rights Amendment was either going to change Western
civilization as we knew it and destroy the family, or it was
unnecessary because we already had equality.


    Q. Do you consider yourself a victim of the backlash?

    Steinem: I don't want to sound like a complaining author,
but there is a chasm between the important reviews and the
popular response. What I wrote as a strengthening of
self-authority, some reviewers called weakness -- even a retreat
from activism. At first, I was very hurt, but then I realized
it was partly their wishful thinking.

    Faludi: It seems to me that the reaction to Gloria's book
is a classic case of how the backlash works. There's been an
almost willful misreading of her message. A friend of mine said
it seemed like all those who want to dismiss feminism have been
lying in wait for Gloria, because of her unsullied reputation.
They were looking for any opening to start slinging mud.


    Q. Does it matter that most of the mudslingers are women?

    Steinem: We've reached the point where the movement is
powerful enough to make jobs for antifeminist women. You don't
get work selling out a movement until there is a movement. I
used to think about that with Phyllis Schlafly. I thought, Well,
at least she has a job.


    Q. Is anyone who criticizes your books necessarily an
antifeminist?

    Faludi: No, as long as we're talking about responsible
criticism. I'm critical of other feminists myself; I believe
there should be more open discussion and disagreement. But so
much of the criticism seems to be about a book I didn't write.
I'm charged with saying there's a male conspiracy out there to
put women down. Anyone who says that can't possibly have read
the book. I say about 14 times that I don't mean there's a
conspiracy. This is not a book about hating men.


    Q. But there is a theme throughout the book of women as
victims, men as oppressors.

    Steinem: But that's true. It's not every woman and every
man, but it's the culture that rewards men for dominating and
rewards women for acceding to domination. It doesn't mean that
we invented it, but it does mean that it's real.

    Faludi: I also like to point out that despite all these
efforts to turn women into victims, women did resist -- by not
buying the clothes or rushing out to get married at 18, or by
not becoming "neotraditionalists."

    Steinem: By listening to their true voice -- a theme Susan
and I both ended up with. I also think it's possible that
intellectual women reviewers were less comfortable with my book
than with Susan's because I'm bringing emotional concerns,
childhood and other traditionally female values into the public
sphere. I'm speaking personally; Susan is speaking as a
professional reporter in a way that the world of journalism
respects.

    Faludi: In an odd way I was playing more by the boys'
rules -- saying, O.K., you men will listen to data and "rational
arguments" and statistics, and the body of evidence will
convince you.

    Steinem: It's objective, third-person reporting, in which
you don't put yourself in the story. It's not that one method
is better than the other -- you choose the method that suits
the subject. Susan's method was exactly right because it got
credibility within the world it was attacking. This book reminds
me of the woman detective who wired herself and won her
sexual-harassment case. Those guys taught her how to wire
herself, and she did, and she caught them. It's a sweet victory,
to win using their methods.


    Q. You've been criticized for patronizing women, by saying
they were sheeplike in following orders and going back into the
home, without understanding that many may have wanted to stay
home.

    Faludi: A lot of that desire to stay home has nothing to
do with feminism; it has to do with the economic opportunities
out there, which shrank considerably. I certainly don't regard
women as sheep, and I believe I have far more respect for my own
sex than the average advertiser or TV programmer. Women were
barraged with one article after another telling them that every
other woman out there wanted to go home, so eventually that
message seeped in, the same way it did with the marriage study.
To say that women and men have been manipulated by popular
culture is not the same as portraying women as mindless
victims. The year after the marriage study came out, suddenly,
miraculously, the number of women worried about getting married
doubled. That was no coincidence. It's simply recognizing the
power of the mass media.


    Q. So you think the reason more women are saying they
prefer to stay home is the backlash message, not their really
wanting to stay with their kids?

    Faludi: The surveys I've looked at indicate that roughly
the same proportion of working men as working women fantasize
about retreating to the home. Moreover, sometimes it's very hard
to know what one thinks under the pressure of the backlash, to
sort out what's you thinking and what's the internalized
message about what you're supposed to think.


    Q. Why the choice of self-esteem as a theme?

    Steinem: This society, Western culture in general, has
devoted itself to externalizing everything, whether it's obeying
the demands of the church to win rewards after death, or the
secular heaven of consumerism that makes us feel insecure if we
don't buy endless things -- all the vast array of external
hierarchies that depend for their authority on weakening our
authority -- especially women's.

    Faludi: Self-esteem is the basis for feminism because
self-esteem is based on defining yourself and believing in that
definition. Self-esteem is regarding yourself as a grownup.


    Q. How are men reacting to your books?

    Steinem: I think some feminist books should be for women
only. It happens that my book is appropriate for men and women
both, because the full self necessary for self-esteem has been
denied more to women -- but also to men. Self-esteem is a way
of saying to men that equality will help you become whole too.

    Faludi: As women become more independent, they leave a lot
of men struggling with confusion over how to define themselves.

    Steinem: I would argue that masculinity limits a man's
full range of human qualities, and so becomes a mask for a lack
of self, shame, and low self-esteem.


    Q. What is the difference between the women's movement
today and the one that existed a decade or so ago?

    Steinem: Throughout the 1970s, the movement was more
consciousness raising in the classic sense. People were
enunciating new issues. There were speakouts and demonstrations.
That still goes on, but now that we have majority support, we're
ready for institutional change. Women are beginning to connect
our everyday lives to changing work patterns and even the
government. It's a big leap to think that what happens to you
every day -- in the secretarial pool, at the shopping center --
has anything to do with who is in the Senate or the White House.
The connection is just beginning to be forged. We are only 25
years into what by all precedent is a century of feminism. But
once you get a majority consciousness change, you also get a
backlash. It's both an inevitable tribute to success and a
danger. The future depends entirely on what each of us does
every day. After all, a movement is only people moving.