Contemporary Feminism

Contemporary Feminism and Beyond
Oxford Handbooks Online

Jo Reger
The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Women's Social Movement Activism
Edited by Holly J. McCammon, Verta Taylor, Jo Reger, and Rachel L. Einwohner
Print Publication Date: Jul 2017 Subject: Political Science, U.S. Politics, Political Behavior
Online Publication Date: May 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190204204.013.6
Abstract and Keywords
Feminism in the United States has been declared dead or in serious decline repeatedly
throughout its history. This chapter examines contemporary, or “third wave,” feminism
and examines whether or not it is in a state of decline, the identities embraced by
contemporary feminists, and the coexistence of different feminist generations. It
investigates contemporary issues of racial-ethnic identity, sexual orientation, and
transgender inclusion and exclusion in the movement. By juxtaposing the tactics,
strategies, and tools of previous feminist generations with the goals and concerns of
contemporary activists, this chapter provides a corrective to those who announce the
death of feminism, while detailing the issues that continue to plague feminist
organizations and activism.
Keywords: contemporary feminism, third wave, generations, transgender, race, ethnicity, activism, women’s
movement
IN the late 1960s and early 1970s, women and men who were engaged in the U.S.
women’s movement felt a rush of accomplishments as legislative and cultural change
unrolled before them (Jay 1999; Snitow and Dupleissis 1998; Taylor and Whittier 1997). In
this period, national and local feminist organizations flourished, abortion was legalized,
and the Equal Rights Amendment passed in Congress, along with a myriad of other
political and cultural successes. However, these victories slowed, and many were
reversed in the Reagan-era 1980s, as well as the decades that followed. Many of the gains
were undermined through legislation and policies that pushed back on the ideas of
gender equality (Faludi 1991). Labeled a “backlash,” the 1980s tempered feminist
optimism and set the stage for the cultural hazing to come, epitomized in the “femi-nazi”
label coined by right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh. In 1992, televangelist Pat Robertson
claimed that “[t]‌he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a
Page 1 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”1
Together, this combination of accomplishment and cultural change mixed with

disillusionment and backlash created the context for what has come to be called the
“third wave” of feminism, emerging in the mid- to late 1990s and continuing into the
twenty-first century. This strand of feminism draws on the ideologies and issues of older
feminisms (e.g., promoting reproductive rights, and combating violence against women
and institutionalized discrimination, among others), while at the same time, it critiques
the feminism that had come before it. The result is a feminist generation engaged in
“traditional” feminist issues, as well as new areas of resistance, which critiques the past
and is situated in a digital era of communication and community. In this chapter, I review
the scholarship and popular writing on “third wave” feminism and first trace the origin of
the term “third wave” while noting critiques of the wave metaphor. I then provide a
characterization of this generation, outlining whom it incorporates and how it structures
activism. I conclude by speculating on the potential directions of feminist research.
Page 2 of 26

(p. 110) Origins of the “Third Wave”

Multiple sources are credited with naming and identifying this feminist generation. Lynn
Chancer notes that in 1991 she called for a “third wave” feminism to signify a turn from
the defensive posture of the 1980s feminism and its backlash (1998). Many credit the
idea to Rebecca Walker when she called herself “third wave” in a Ms. magazine article in
1992. In the article “Becoming the Third Wave,” Walker examined her anger in the
aftermath of the Clarence Thomas hearings and called for young women and men to start
a new wave of activism. For others, the Riot Grrrl uprising in the Northwest United States
in 1989 signaled the reconceptualization of a new, punk-infused, generationally defined
form of feminism (Marcus 2010). It revolved around self-made feminist ’zines, grassroots
Riot Grrrl groups, and bands such as Bikini Kill, with singer Kathleen Hanna, until it
began to retreat by 1996 (Marcus 2010; Rosenberg and Garofalo 1998). Finally, many
credit the rise of the “third wave” as having its origins in the challenges made by women
of color to “second wave” feminism for its lack of racial-ethnic inclusivity, among other
issues (Baumgardner and Richards 2000; Dicker and Piepmeier 2003; Heywood and
Drake 1997). The Combahee River Collective expressed this sentiment when they wrote
that “racism and elitism within the [women’s] movement have served to obscure our
participation” (1979: 6). As a result of critiques such as these, feminist writers Jennifer
Baumgardner and Amy Richards argue that “[t]‌he Third Wave was born of diversity
realized by the latter part of the Second Wave” (2000: 77).
While each of these origin stories points to a different narrative for the inception of
contemporary feminism, each of these origin stories illustrates a defining characteristic.
Lynn Chancer’s naming points to the interplay of empowerment and backlash, of the
“old” tactics and the “new” context as the 1980s receded. Rebecca Walker’s identification
of the “third wave” brings with it energy as well as intergenerational dissension and
critique. The Riot Grrrl uprising signals a focus on girlhood, femininity, and individualized
empowerment. The critiques of Black feminists such as Patricia Hill Collins, Kimberlé
Creshaw, and bell hooks forge understandings of race, ethnicity, inclusion, and privilege
through the concept of intersectionality. However, just as critiques played a role in the
origins of the “third wave,” the label of “third wave” also came under critique as feminist
scholars sought ways to understand and conceptualize women’s movement activism
through time.
Page 3 of 26

Wave Metaphor
The U.S. women’s movement has a long history, dating back to the 1700s and 1800s, and
scholars have come to conceptualize this history as one of waves of activism that rise,
peak, and diminish over time. The wave metaphor presents the history of the women’s
movement in terms of differentiated decades, such as the “first wave,” from the late
1800s to the early 1900s, and the “second wave,” from the 1960s to 1980s. The (p. 111)
“third wave,” according to this metaphor, is from the mid- to late 1990s into the twenty-
first century. While the metaphor allows for the longevity of the movement to be easily
understood, scholars have argued that relying on the idea of “waves” can be historically
reductive, leaving out groups of activists, issues, and types of activism. Feminist scholar
Astrid Henry (2008) summarizes the critiques, arguing that the metaphor of “waves”
creates the sense of a single “demographic” generation that transitions through time and
homogenizes ideologies, identities, and beliefs within a historical moment.
As a result, scholars argue that feminist history, as well as the activists and organizations
within certain time periods, become simplified. For example, in the telling of the “first
wave,” the 1860s and early 1900s become a time of suffrage. In the “second wave,”
activism focuses on consciousness-raising by one group of feminists and the obtaining of
legislative rights by another, dropping out an array of activism, and activist identities, as
well as missing the complicated merging and dividing of groups within U.S. feminism. In
addition, the focus on the linear nature of waves often only captures the most visible
public protests by elite groups of women, missing the activism of marginalized groups
such as women of color, working-class women and feminist labor union organizing, and
lesbians (Cobble 2010; Hewitt 2010a; Nadasen 2002; Roth 2002; Thompson 2002).
Scholars Benita Roth, Premilla Nadasen, and Becky Thompson argue that the history of
the U.S. women’s movement, as told through the wave metaphor, is “whitewashed,”
leaving out organizing by women of color.2
Overall, these critiques point to a metaphor that serves to flatten the diversity of thought
and action, draws on a mother-daughter structure of interaction, presents all changes as
forward, progressive and linear, and reinforces a Western perspective and context,
ignoring the global (Henry 2011; Nicholson 2010). Instead, scholars work to create a
more complicated view of women’s movement history, arguing that the types and forms of
women’s rights activism did not happen in discrete time periods but often overlapped and
existed outside historically determined boundaries (Hewitt 2010b; Naples 2005). In
addition, Cathryn Bailey (1997) argues that our understanding of the feminism of the day
should incorporate the ambiguity and contradiction that has been present in all the
“waves.”3 With this in mind, contemporary feminism is a part of overlapping feminist
generations that commingle and coexist, both working cooperatively and in opposition to
each other (see Reger 2012, 2014). Contemporary feminists therefore, are a generation
emerging in a common context, coexisting and overlapping with other feminist
generations. Drawing on “generations” instead of “waves” allows for later twentieth- and
Page 4 of 26

early twenty-first-century feminists to be understood as coming into feminism in a

particular social context, yet allows them to be seen as a diverse group, intermingling
with feminists who came into the movement before them.
Dead or Alive?
Regardless of the use of “wave” or “generation,” if contemporary feminism is only viewed
through the lens of popular culture, one would quickly come to the conclusion that
feminism (p. 112) is nonexistent. Through the history of U.S. feminism, the popular media
and some political pundits have repeatedly declared feminism dead or in decline.
According to these accounts, feminism died in the 1920s when suffrage was won, again in
the 1980s with the backlash against feminism, and again in the late 1990s with the
infamous 1998 Time magazine cover that asked whether feminism was dead (and
concluded that it was).4 These all heralded periods of “post-feminism,” where women
supposedly turned away from feminism, having been disillusioned by its promises of
progress and equality. Feminism’s viability was again called into question in 2014 when
Time magazine again addressed U.S. feminism by adding the word “feminist” to a poll of
“worst words” that needed to be eliminated from the lexicon (this was later removed after
an outcry by feminists).5 Feminist media scholar Jennifer Pozner, with tongue in cheek,
labels this the “False Feminist Death Syndrome,” which includes the “Passing Fad
Fantasy,” the “Premature Obituary,” and the “Postfeminist Fiction” (2003: 31). According
to feminist scholar Mary Hawkesworth (2004), these death notices serve a larger goal,
erasing the social justice efforts of women around the world, while preserving the status
quo. She writes, “The recurrent obituaries of feminist activism can also be interpreted as
a redrawing of community boundaries designed to accomplish far more than the exile of
feminism, designed, in fact, to annihilate it” (2004: 982).
There is significant evidence that feminist ideas, beliefs, and policies have shaped the
dominant culture even when we are not aware of it. Feminist gains altered the
institutions of education, medicine, government, religion, family, and the workplace.
Cultural changes due to feminism submerged into the popular culture (Douglas 2010).
Corporations draw on feminist ideas in the promotion of their products (Johnston and
Taylor 2008; Messner 2002) and more and more female celebrities openly claim a
feminist identity (Contrera 2014). Research shows that people continue to claim the
identity of feminist in a variety of communities, including feminist networks (Reger 2012),
OCCUPY mobilizations (Hurwitz and Taylor, forthcoming), anti-war protests (Kutz-
Flamenbaum 2007), art groups (Raizada 2007), hip-hop (Peoples 2007), crafting (Kelly
2014; Pentney 2008) as well as the surge of Women’s Marches in early 2017. In sum,
scholars continue to provide evidence that, despite the bemoaning of some and the
jubilant obituaries of others, feminism endures in the twenty-first century as an
ideological basis of activism and in the formation of activist identities.
Page 5 of 26

Who Are Contemporary Feminists?
Identities
Researchers find that significant numbers of women and men still identify as feminists
(Hall and Rodriquez 2003; Houvouras and Carter 2008; McCabe 2005). Elaine Hall and
Marnie Rodriquez (2003) used public opinion data to examine the “post-feminist” era of
the 1990s and found that both women and men continue to claim a feminist identity. In
addition, they found that women are not increasingly growing more anti-feminist (p. 113)
and that the women’s movement continues to have public support. Pamela Aronson’s
research found that while some young women may not publicly adopt a feminist identity,
they continue to agree with many of the goals and beliefs of feminism (2003). In sum, the
notion that young women and men do not adopt feminist identities is false. Instead, young
women and men come into feminism in a society changed by the women’s movement
through “surfacing,” the gradual process of coming to identify and act on feminist ideas
in a world with submerged feminism (Reger 2012: 56). This process is aided by factors
such as personal experiences, feminist parents, educational experiences, in particular
women’s studies, and experiences in other social movements (Glickman 1993; Hercus
2005; McGuire et al. 2010; Reger 2012).
Page 6 of 26

Generations
People come into feminism as they have life experiences that politicize them. Nancy
Whittier (1995, 1997) refers to these politicized groups as micro-cohorts within a larger
generation who, because of their similarities, often view the world in similar ways. The
idea that different cohorts, either micro-cohorts or generations, view the need for social
justice in different ways is insightful when considering the contemporary women’s
movement. Indeed, Jason Schnittker and his colleagues (2003) found generational
differences in in the definition of feminism, with a younger generation adopting a more
heterogeneous view of what it means to be a feminist. This process of differential defining
between political generations is labeled “disidentification” (Braungart and Braungart
1984; Henry 2004, 2005). According to Braungart and Braungart (1984), disidentification
is the process in which the younger generation intentionally distances itself from the
older generation. While the Braungarts refer to age as the source of disidentification,
experiences due to sex and gender can also be the foundation of a political generation
(Schneider 1988). Therefore, contemporary feminism is shaped by the politicized
experience of being an aged, gendered, and sexed being, among other social categories
made relevant in a particular social context. Deborah Stevenson and her colleagues
provide evidence for these generational differences in feminist identities. They argue that
women in the 1970s and 1980s “felt constrained by the fact that they were women,”
whereas younger women “take for granted that their gender is not, or at least should not,
be a limiting factor in their lives” (2011: 134). Ednie Garrison argues that this process is
not necessarily a negative one in that it can aid in the construction of feminist identities,
as different generations create new feminist agendas, goals, and strategies, and mobilize
new participants (Garrison 2000, 2005; Henry 2004). Social movement scholars argue
that constructing a sense of “we” in opposition to “them,” a key component in
constructing a collective activist identity, creates group solidarity (Taylor and Whittier
1992) and can be a positive movement outcome (Staggenborg and Taylor 2005). However,
because feminist generations are forged in different times and contexts, contemporary
feminism is often presented as being at odds and in conflict with previous generations.
This sense of generational division comes from both the popular media as well as
(p. 114)
from feminists themselves. Scholars Nancy Naples (2005) and Stephanie Gilmore (2005)
document the intergenerational dialogue at the 2002 Veteran Feminists of America
conference, where contemporary feminists were berated by older feminists for not
making, in their eyes, meaningful social change. The older generation often views the
contemporary generation as lacking a sense of feminist history, flattening multiple strains
of 1960s and 1970s feminism into a monolithic, mainstream feminism (Orr 1997). In
response, contemporary feminists have often turned to anger and denial of the older
generation’s accomplishments. The contemporary generation often critiques the previous
generation on multiple fronts, arguing that they focused only on institutional change,
leaving contemporary feminists to correct their omissions, particularly those around
class, race, sexuality, and gender (Henry 2004). This dissension between groups of
feminists is often presented as a mother-daughter “catfight.” Feminist writer Katha Pollit
Page 7 of 26

noted that the generational division was often characterized around sexuality as “angry
prudes versus drunken sluts” (2009: 1). Overall, both generations of feminists often draw
on misinformation and stereotypes in dealing with each other.
In sum, while scholars find the demise of feminism to be untrue, the existence of a
generational divide has some grounding in the truth. Johanna Foster finds that “veteran
feminists” from the 1960s and 1970s feel “significant anger at the loss of systemic
political analyses among younger Americans, and sometimes younger feminists” (2015:
72). Contemporary feminists respond by seeing their feminism as making amends for the
mistakes of previous generations (Reger 2012). This divide often gets played out in the
media, particularly on the web, with headlines floating back and forth accusing each
other of being out of touch. It is important to note that not all generational interactions
are hostile. Feminist generations do peacefully coexist, as evidenced in Chris Bobel’s
work on menstrual activism (2010). In addition, generations may work cooperatively in
some contexts, such as in Suzanne Beechey’s study of feminist workplaces (2005) and in
feminist communities immersed in a hostile environment (Reger 2012).
Page 8 of 26

Race and Ethnicity in the Movement
While the separations between generations may promote the construction of new feminist
identities sustaining the movement, the divisions between feminists caused by issues of
race and ethnicity have a history of tearing apart feminist networks, organizations, and
the movement itself (Breines 2006). The dissension caused by the unacknowledged
racism, classism, and homophobia is a part of U.S. women’s movement history (Laughlin
et al. 2010). Feminists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are accused of excluding
women of color, and poor and working-class women. Feminists in the 1960s and 1970s
were additionally charged with homophobia and heterosexism. The movement’s ideology
of “universal sisterhood,” which argues that sex is the most salient social category, placed
non-White, non-middle-class, and lesbian women in the position of having to see
themselves as “either/or” with the women’s movement—that (p. 115) is, either “women”
or members of another social category such as race-ethnicity, class, or sexual orientation
(Collins 2000). Scholars document how women of color and working-class women often
worked in separate organizations and networks on issues that addressed multiple aspects
of their lives (B. Roth 2002; S. Roth 2008; Thompson 2002) and that many “mainstream”
feminist organizations paid insufficient attention to race and ethnicity (Giddings 1984).
This resulted in feminist activists and scholars, such as the Combahee River Collective
(1979), Deborah King (1988), and later, Patricia Hill Collins (2000), conceptualizing an
intersectional feminist paradigm that views race-ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality as
interlocking systems of oppression, forming a “matrix of domination” in which one social
identity cannot be understood completely without considering all aspects of a person.
This conceptual development, along with scholarship such as the anthology This Bridge
Called My Back by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa (1981), became a staple in
women’s studies courses. The scholarship of the 1980s was followed by contemporary
women of color feminists who continued to struggle to be seen, heard, and acknowledged
in contemporary feminism. One example is the anthology Colonize This! Young Women of
Color on Today’s Feminism, edited by Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman, in which
they write, “We can’t have someone else defining our lives or our feminism” and that
their experiences with “white feminism was bittersweet at best” (2002, xxii).
While the writings of women of color shape contemporary feminists’ views on the need
for inclusivity and diversity in the movement, White feminists still struggle with creating
a multiracial, multicultural movement. Juanita Johnson-Bailey, in her study of African-
American women’s relationship to feminism (2003), found that Black women largely felt
that the women’s movement had not addressed their concerns and that White women
contribute to their oppression and marginalization. Kia Caldwell and Margaret Hunter
found similar understandings in their quest to build a feminist community, drawing on
two different generations of women of color (2004). Kimberley Springer argues that
young Black women may think and do feminism but do not claim the label (2005. The gap
between White women and women of color was evident in the 2011 mobilization of
“slutwalks.”6 While many White women eagerly claimed the label of “slut” as
empowering, many women of color did not. In a letter to the organizers and the
Page 9 of 26

cyberfeminist community, the group Black Women’s Blueprint explained that using “slut”
as empowering ignores a history of sexual exploitation and oppression experienced in
some form by all women of color. They wrote, “We know the SlutWalk is a call to action …
we struggle with the decision to answer this call by joining with or supporting something
that even in name exemplified the ways in which mainstream women’s movements have
repeatedly excluded Black women …” (2011: 1).
While a racial-ethnic divide still continues in contemporary feminism, there are some
success stories. Ellen Scott (2005) argues that while feminist organizations have largely
failed to accomplish diversity and inclusion, some groups have succeeded. Scott
attributes this success to a combination of an ideology of inclusion and structural
opportunities for leadership by women of color. In her study, she finds that a commitment
to keeping women of color in leadership positions, along with a hierarchical (p. 116)
organizational structure, helped organizations combating violence against women to
maintain a racially diverse group. Other research illustrates that the most diverse and
inclusive feminist organizations and networks are often the ones that are situated in
communities that are also diverse in race and ethnicity (Reger 2012).
It is important to note that while a discussion of social class and economic privilege has
been a central part of feminist theories, the focus on diversity in the movement tends to
ignore class and instead emphasizes race-ethnicity, generations, gender, and sexuality
(Helmbold 2002). Indeed, a meeting of several prominent feminist scholars, including
Evelyn Nakano Glenn and Barbara Ehrenreich, concluded that contemporary feminism
has far to go with addressing classism and needs to address the widening gap between
social classes and the exploitation of poor and immigrant women by privileged women.7
Sex, Gender, and Sexuality
Whereas the sex category of “woman” was the basis of much previous activism in the U.S.
women’s movement, many contemporary feminists embrace a more fluid way of
identifying one’s sex, gender, and sexuality. Instead of sex categories of male and female,
and sexual identity categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual, many
contemporary feminists identify instead as gender queer or simply queer, with a growing
number identifying as transgender. Drawing on queer theory, this approach identifies sex,
sexuality, and gender binaries as constraints, molding people to norms that control and
limit their behavior and potential. Instead, gender and gender expression are seen as
fluid, and exploring gender can be a politicizing experience (Shapiro 2007).
Contemporary feminists often play with gender norms and identity outside of the gender/
sex binaries (Snyder 2008). In Bobel’s study of different generations of menstrual
activists, she found that contemporary, or “third wave” feminists move away from
“woman” as an essential sex category. She writes,
Page 10 of 26

Womb imagery, for instance, rings hollow for women who don’t identify with their
procreative capacities (or lack of capacities). Calling attention to the uniquely
female experience of monthly bleeding excludes young girls, post menopausal
women, transgendered and transsexual women and women, who for myriad other
reasons, cannot or will not bleed. Third Wave feminists are invested in inclusion,
not essentialism. (2006: 340)
With the category of woman in flux, so too are categories of sexual identity. Instead of
identifying on a continuum from heterosexual to bisexual to homosexual, contemporary
feminists may also choose to expand the spectrum, identifying as queer, as in no category,
or asexual. While sexual orientation in the past was an issue of discrimination within the
movement, with events such as the labeling of lesbians as the “Lavender Menace” by
Betty Friedan, twenty-first-century feminism is more focused on issues of transgender
and how transgender women (transitioning from male to female, (p. 117) or MtF) fit in
contemporary feminism. In the past, transgender, or transsexual, men (transitioning from
female to male, or FtM) were seen as seeking male privilege and as traitors to their
biological sex by some radical feminists (Raymond [1979] 1994). Contemporary studies
find that some feminists still resist including transgender women and men in their
communities (Hines 2005). For example, the Michigan Women’s Music Festival, an annual
music festival started in the mid-1970s, continues to allow only woman-born-women to
attend, despite decades of protest from the transgender community and its allies.
However, some argue that the focus on gender fluidity, queer theory, and transgender
rights is reshaping feminism in important ways (Connell 2012; Stein 2010). Raywyn
Connell writes that transgender people illustrate “living the instability of the sex/gender
binary” and provide “key evidence about how gender categories are sustained in
everyday practices of speech, styles of interaction, and divisions of labor” (2012: 861,
860). Arlene Stein notes that “[t]‌oday’s emergent categories are much more fine-tuned,
combining sexual preferences, gender presentation and other modes of
identification” (2010: 28). Indeed, Clare Snyder (2008) argues that one of the key
components to “third wave” feminism is the way in which young feminists must address
how transgender women and men have complicated the category of “woman.” This
concerns some feminists, who are afraid that losing the sex and gender category of
“woman” is problematic in a world where women as a group still do not experience
equality (Reger 2012; see also Stein 2010).
Along with gender and sexual identity, some contemporary feminists, reflecting on the
“sex wars” of the 1980s, argue that feminism of the past has limited sexuality and the
articulation of sexual desire for contemporary feminists (Johnson 2002; Snyder 2008).
While the feminist “sex wars” emerge from a complicated set of factors, one source
comes from a 1982 conference at Barnard College where anti-pornography, sex radicals,
and pro-sex feminists collided and debates over power, sexual expression, and eroticism
broke out. Some argue that an oversimplified understanding of these differences between
the anti-pornography and radical pro-sex feminists has been portrayed to a contemporary
feminist generation (Duggan and Hunter 2006; Gerhard 2001). For many young feminists,
their understanding is that the generation before them advocated only “politically
Page 11 of 26

correct” and somewhat asexual and passive sexuality (Johnson 2002; Reger 2012).
Instead, contemporary feminists argue for a more “sex-positive” approach that embraces
overt sexuality, and “emphasizes an inclusive and nonjudgmental approach that refuses to
police the boundaries of the feminist political” (Snyder 2008: 175–176). One illustration
of these ideas is the emergence of the 2011 “slutwalks” in which participants argued
against the double sexual standard and the ways in which women are targeted by “slut
shaming” and “sexual profiling” (SlutWalk Toronto 2011). Though short-lived, the
slutwalks restored to public view not only the issue of sexual violence, but also the idea of
the sexual empowerment of women. In sum, women and men continue to adopt feminist
identities and participate in a movement that struggles with issues of generations, race-
ethnicity, and sex, gender, and sexuality. I now turn to the contexts where contemporary
feminists situate themselves.
(p. 118) Organizations, Networks, and Communities
Despite the death knell being sounded for feminism, there continue to be national-level,
large-scale feminist organizations in the United States. Contemporary feminists continue
work in organizations founded by previous generations such as the National Organization
for Women (NOW), National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and Planned
Parenthood (Beechey 2005; Reger 2012). Contemporary feminists have also started their
own national organizations such as the Third Wave Foundation, started by Rebecca
Walker and Shannon Liss in 1992. The foundation is described as a “feminist, activist
foundation that works nationally to support the vision and voices of young women,
transgender and gender nonconforming youth ages 15 to 30” (http://
www.thirdwavefoundation.org). The group provides grants to youth-led and focused
organizations, advocates for social justice within the philanthropic community, and works
on leadership development.
While acknowledging the existence of national-level organizations provides proof of

feminism’s continuity, scholars warn against taking an overly narrow focus on large,
national, and state-focused actions. Staggenborg and Taylor (2005) argue that when
national-level mobilization slows, a movement is often declared dead, even though it
continues to develop a broad spectrum of organizations. They argue that the women’s
movement embraces multiple organizational forms that are often embedded in
communities in local organizations and networks (see also Rupp and Taylor 1987; Taylor
1989). Examinations of feminism find active community networks of feminists working
within national and local organizations, as well as those linked to activists in other
movements (Bobel 2010; Hurwitz and Taylor, forthcoming; Kutz-Flamenbaum 2007; Reger
and Staggenborg 2006; Reger 2012). While contemporary feminists resemble their
foremothers in the organizations and networks in which they work and live, the Internet
has introduced new ways of experiencing activism and community.
Page 12 of 26

Contemporary feminists move in a digital world (Alfonso and Trigilio 1997; Crossley 2015;
Daniels 2009; Everett 2004). The Internet is filled with contemporary feminist websites
that offer advice, reading lists, calls for action, rants, merchandise, and most important,
that serve as a foundation of feminist community and connection. Barbara Duncan
illustrates how the contemporary feminist magazine Bust, through an online forum and
website, can serve as a feminist community or “home,” much as Ms. magazine’s Letters to
the Editor section did in the 1970s and 1980s (2005: 165). This engagement in the digital
world is labeled “cyberfeminism,” defined as “experimentation and engagement with
various Internet technologies by self-identified women across several domains, including
work, education, domestic life, civic engagement, feminist political organizing, art, and
play” (Daniels 2009: 103). Jesse Daniels argues that although digital technology has been
dominated by men, cyberfeminists “use the Internet to transform their material,
corporeal lives in a number of complex ways that both resist and reinforce hierarchies of
gender and race” (2009: 101). Indeed, Alison Crossley notes that “[w]‌hile some people
may (p. 119) wonder where the feminists have gone, it is clear that many feminists are
online, fueling the feminist movement” (2015: 265). This place of resistance and protest
also has the potential to bring together generations of feminists (Evertt 2004), or at the
least, indicate generational shifts in tactics (Crossley 2015). Anna Everett optimistically
argues that conversations and debates between feminists about the practicality and
purpose of cyberfeminism have the ability to reconceptualize generational relationships.
She writes,
This is a good thing. For even as older feminists tell younger feminists how to do
feminist history and philosophy, younger feminists can tell older feminists how to
do cyberfeminist art, “hactivism,” and technological wizardry. Finally, we can
move beyond some false or socially engineered generational barriers, develop
mutual respect, and ultimately get over the so-called nagging-mother–daughter
thing. (2004: 1281)
In sum, contemporary feminists move in what historian Leandra Zarnow calls “inherited
intellectual and organizational spaces” (2010: 294), as well as in new frontiers in
cyberspace.
Tactics, Strategies, and Goals
Writers and scholars have characterized contemporary feminism as undergoing a tactical

shift from the feminism of the 1970s and 1980s with an emphasis on the everyday and the
cultural versus a more institutional approach (Evans and Bobel 2007; Fixmer and Wood
2005; Heywood and Drake 1997). This shift is to address what Snyder calls “impasses
that developed within feminist theory in the 1980s” (2008: 175). As a result of these
impasses, contemporary feminists focus on intersectionality versus “woman” as category,
“multivocality over synthesis” (drawing on a postmodern perspective) and an open,
accepting, and nonjudgmental view of the world (Snyder 2008: 175). In addition, some
characterize contemporary feminists as viewing the individual as an important change
Page 13 of 26

agent who should engage in “personal acts of resistance in local sites where injustices
occur” (Fixmer and Wood 2005: 237–238; Evans and Bobel 2007; Stevenson el al. 2011).
In this perspective, contemporary feminist ideology and strategies are often viewed as
overcoming the past mistakes of second-wave generation feminists and forging into more
cultural and everyday life arenas.
The notion of the everyday and the individual as sites of protest moves away from more
collective and feminist-identified protests. Evans and Bobel, in their review of popular
feminist writings, argue that the everyday becomes a site of activism in “daily acts of
resistance that may or may not be enacted under the feminist banner” (2007: 217). They
give as examples serving as a feminist role model, challenging gender socialization at
home, or organizing in neighborhoods, or working with different social movements. As
such, the everyday can be outwardly focused or centered on the (p. 120) individual. In the
late twentieth century, some contemporary feminist writers talked of doing feminism by
playing with appearance through makeup, hair, clothing, and piercings as a way to
construct and transmit a political message. Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards
labeled one expression of this as “girlie feminism,” in which feminists seek to reclaim the
femininity and joy they perceive as missing in second wave feminism by embracing
“disparaged girl things” (2000: 80). This reclaiming of “disparaged girl things” is also
evident in twenty-first-century feminist crafting communities. Beth Ann Pentney, in her
study of fiber arts and feminism, quotes knitting “guru” Debbie Stoller as saying, “valuing
the craft of knitting is feminist act in itself … because the denigration of knitting
correlates directly with the denigration of traditionally women-centred activity” (2008: 1).
Self-expression as a form of activism is also evident in other ways in contemporary
feminism. Alison Piepmeier (2009) documented the large feminist subculture of ’zines
(self-published magazines), often made and distributed by individuals. She argues that
these ’zines are more than creative expressions, but can be seen as efforts toward social
change.
However, it is inaccurate to characterize all contemporary feminism as focused on

individual and everyday notions of resistance. Contemporary feminist activism is also
evident in the institutional and global context. Ara Wilson (2007) noted that transnational
social justice gatherings, such as the World Social Forum, draw feminists from around the
world working in a variety of organizations on a myriad of feminist issues. Indeed,
feminist activism continues to grow in the global arena (Ferree and Tripp 2006). For
example, Jessica Taft documents the activism by girls across the Americas that mixes a
variety of issues with aspects of feminism (2011). However, engaging in work with other
movements, as well as working within some communities, can hide feminist activism from
the general public’s view. Indeed, contemporary feminists continue to work on topics
ranging from prison reform to anti-poverty programs to electoral politics, continuing the
coalition and crossover work begun in the 1960s and 1970s with feminist engagement in
a variety of other movements, including community, welfare rights, self-help,
Page 14 of 26

environmental, gay and lesbian, peace, anti-racist, and global justice (Staggenborg and
Taylor 2005; Taft 2011).
In sum, contemporary feminists resemble other generations of feminists in many ways.

They continue to adopt feminist identities and engage in feminist activism. They struggle
with building a diverse and inclusive movement, and they work in organizations and
agencies founded in the 1970s and 1980s geared at women’s lives. However,
contemporary feminists also are situated in a very different context from that of earlier
feminists. They live in a digital and computerized world that creates new communities
and forms of activism. They address ideas of intersectionality and gender/sex/sexual
fluidity in their beliefs and actions. They focus on the individual and the everyday, while
at the same time engaging in efforts at larger social change. Scholars of the U.S. women’s
movement illustrate how, just as in the past, contemporary feminists are a diverse group
who bring a multitude of meanings, beliefs, and identities to feminist activism.
(p. 121) Future Directions for Research

The core characteristics of contemporary feminism also highlight the direction that the
future of feminist research will take. Feminist researchers will continue to examine the
interplay between digital technology and feminist identity, ideology, and activism, the role
of transgender and gender/sex/sexual fluidity in a “women’s” movement, the continuing
barriers to racial-ethnic diversity and inclusion in the movement, and the way that
feminism often aligns with other protests, remaining submerged yet relevant.
Cyberfeminism
Feminist research must continue to examine the interplay between digital technology and
the creation of feminist identities, ideology, and activism. Stephanie Schulte notes (2011)
that early feminist scholarship tended to see the Internet as either a space for genderless,
and bodiless, liberation or as a male-dominated sphere where gender oppression would
be reinscribed. In a review of cyberfeminism scholarship, she notes that feminist research
is less focused on this binary and is turning its attention to how “online power only
matters if it also translates to offline power” (2011: 737). A goal for researchers will be to
take the rich world that exists online and see how it is transformed into collective action
in the “real” world, beyond the Internet. Cyberfeminism offers social movement scholars
an opportunity to examine how social change efforts and locations are shifting and how
outcomes can be measured.
Gender
Page 15 of 26

Shifting views of gender and its relationship to sex and sexual identity will continue to be
of concern for feminists and feminist researchers. Transgender and the notion of gender
fluidity will continue to challenge the notion of a movement of “women.” As Connell
notes, “The issue of transsexual women’s relation to the feminist project has not been
settled. It is time to reconsider the terms in which the problem has been framed” (2012:
823). She argues that transgender is more than an identity that can be understood as a
group process, claiming, instead, that transgender offers feminist researchers a site to
investigate and expand on gender dynamics of context, space, and time. Feminist
researchers need to heed this call to investigate what it means to move beyond gender
binaries and the impact that this shift has on movement organization, ideology, and
identity. What does it mean to let go of ideas of universal sisterhood and the category of
“woman”? In particular, researchers need to examine what undoing gender means in
trans- and international contexts. Ferree and Mueller (2004) define the difference
between feminist movements, concerned with gender equity, and (p. 122) women’s
movements, focused on women’s lives. Researcher must investigate questions such as:
How do Western conceptions of “gender fluidity” influence women’s movements in other
contexts? Can feminist or women’s movements exist without the idea of “woman” as a
given category?
Race and Ethnicity in the Movement
As the research of Benita Roth and Becky Thompson illustrates, the history of race in the
women’s movement is a complicated one that deserves close examination. Most studies of
contemporary feminism find that feminists embrace the idea of inclusion, while at the
same time constructing organizations and networks that reflect the racial and ethnic
makeup of their communities and daily lives. Scholars need to continue to look closely at
White women’s feminism and organizations to see what barriers exist to racial-ethnic
diversity and inclusion. Scholars will also need to heed Angela Davis’s warning that
“[d]‌iversity is not a synonym for justice” and consider what it means to experience
diversity within the movement and what that accomplishes for feminism.8
Scholars will also continue to look closely at communities of color for the way feminism is
being done in ways not yet recognized as feminist. Black feminist scholars have noted
how feminism done by women of color has not always aligned with feminism done by
White women. These variations in what it means to be and do feminism can add both
theoretically and empirically to our understanding of women’s movements. In addition,
racial identifications beyond White and Black, as well as identifications of social class,
need continued close examination to have a more complete understanding of
contemporary feminism. Social class is clearly one of the most understudied aspects of
the U.S. women’s movement. Researchers need to delve into the past to understand the
dynamics of class and then examine the current movement for the ways in which class
continues to influence and shape the movement.
Page 16 of 26

Looking in Unexpected Places
The call to end the use of the “wave” metaphor has been sounded by contemporary
scholars who will continue to look for new ways to understand a complicated movement.
Part of re-examining the history of the U.S. women’s movement will also be to examine
what has been defined as “feminist.” Contemporary feminists have illustrated how
feminist ideologies often underlie issues that do not appear to be feminist as first glance.
Continuing to draw on “waves” to see “feminist” protests will result in a myopic view of
the women’s movement. Moving beyond the notion of “waves” will allow researchers to
conceptualize the movement in new and important ways. Researchers are tasked with
understanding how feminists adopt tactics, work in generational situations, and define
themselves in coalitions with a variety of organizations. This will most likely entail a new
conceptual vocabulary and new methods of investigation that (p. 123) have the potential
of shaping the field of social movements. In sum, continued examinations of U.S. feminism
in all of these directions will expand our knowledge of women’s activism, as well as our
understandings of social movements in general.
References
Alfonso, Rita, and Jo Trigilio. 1997. “Surfing the Third Wave: A Dialogue Between Two
Third Wave Feminists.” Hypatia 12(3): 7–16.
Aronson, Pamela. 2003. “Feminists or ‘Postfeminists’? Young Women’s Attitudes toward

Feminism and Gender Relations.” Gender & Society 17(6): 903–922.
Bailey, Cathryn. 1997. “Making Waves and Drawing Lines: The Politics of
(p. 124)
Defining the Vicissitudes of Feminism.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy

12(Summer): 17–28.
Baumgardner, Jennifer, and Amy Richards. 2000. Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and
the Future. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Beechey, Suzanne. 2005. “When Feminism Is Your Job: Age and Power in Women’s Policy
Organizations.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s
Movement, edited by J. Reger, pp. 117–136. New York: Routledge.
Bobel, Chris. 2006. “Our Revolution Has Style”: Contemporary Menstrual Product
Activists ‘Doing Feminism’ in the Third Wave.” Sex Roles 54: 331–345.
Bobel, Chris. 2010. New Blood: Third-Wave Feminism and the Politics of Menstruation.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Braungart, Richard, and Margaret A. Braungart. 1984. “Life Course and Generational
Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 12: 205–231.
Page 17 of 26

Breines, Winifred. 2006. The Trouble between Us: An Uneasy History of White and Black
Women in the Feminist Movement. New York: Oxford.
Caldwell, Kia Lilly, and Margaret Hunter. 2004. “Creating a Feminist Community on a
Women of Color Campus.” Frontiers 25(1): 23–38.
Chancer, Lynn S. 1998. Reconcilable Differences: Confronting Beauty, Pornography and

the Future of Feminism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cobble, Dorothy Sue. 2010. “Labor Feminists and President Kennedy’s Commission on
Women.” In No Permanent Waves: Recasting Histories of U.S. Feminism, edited by N. A.
Hewitt, pp. 144–167. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Combahee River Collective. 1979. “Combahee River Collective: A Black Feminist

Statement.” Off our Backs 9(6): 6–8.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. Rev. 10th anniversary ed. New York: Routledge.
Connell, Raewyn. 2012. “Transsexual Women and Feminist Thought: Toward New
Understanding and New Politics.” Signs 37(4): 857–881.
Contrera, Jessica. September 29, 2014. “Can Stars Mix Fame and Feminism? Female
Celebrities Being Asked about ‘F-word’ More and More.” The Toronto Star, p. E1.
Crossley, Alison Dahl. 2015. “Facebook Feminism: Social Media, Blogs and New
Technologies of Contemporary U.S. Feminism.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly
20(2): 253–268.
Daniels, Jesse. 2009. “Rethinking Cyberfeminism(s): Race, Gender, and Embodiment.”

WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly 37(1–2): 101–124.
Dicker, Rory, and Alison Piepmeier, eds. 2003. Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for
the 21st Century. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Douglas, Susan J. 2010. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s
Work Is Done. New York: Times Books.
Duggan, Lisa, and Nan D. Hunter. 2006. Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Duncan, Barbara. 2005. “Searching for a Home Place: Online in the Third Wave.” In
Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement, edited by J.
Reger, pp. 161–178. New York: Routledge.
Evans, Meredith A., and Chris Bobel. 2007. “‘I Am a Contradiction’: Feminism and
Feminist Identity in the Third Wave.” New England Journal of Public Policy 1–2: 207–222.
Page 18 of 26

Everett, Anna. 2004. “On Cyberfeminism and Cyberwomanism: High-Tech Mediations of

Feminism’s Discontents.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(1): 1278–
1286.
Faludi, Susan. 1991. Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women.
(p. 125)
New York: Crown Publishers.
Fixmer, Natalie, and Julia T. Wood. 2005. “The Personal Is Still Political: Embodied Politics
in Third Wave Feminism.” Women’s Studies in Communication 28(2): 235–257.
Foster, Johanna E. 2015. “Women of a Certain Age: ‘Second Wave’ Feminists Reflect Back
on 50 years of Struggle in the United States.” Women’s Studies International Forum 50:
58–79.
Ferree, Myra Marx, and Carol McClurg Mueller. 2004. “Feminism and the Women’s
Movement: A Global Perspective.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements,
edited by D. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi, pp. 576–607. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ferree, Myra Marx, and Aili Mari Tripp, eds. 2006. Global Feminism: Transnational
Women’s Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights. New York: New York University Press.
Garrison, Ednie K. 2000. “U.S. Feminism—Grrrl Style! Youth (Sub)Cultures and the
Technologics of the Third Wave.” Feminist Studies 26(1): 141–151.
Garrison, Ednie K. 2005. “Are We on a Wavelength Yet? On Feminist Oceanography,

Radios and Third Wave Feminism.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the
Contemporary Women’s Movement, edited by J. Reger, pp. 237–256. New York:
Routledge.
Gerhard, Jane. 2001. Desiring Revolution: Second-Wave Feminism and the Rewriting of
American Sexual Thought, 1920 to 1982. New York: Columbia University Press.
Giddings, Paula. 1984. When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and
Sex in America. New York: Bantam.
Gilmore, Stephanie. 2005. “Bridging the Waves: Sex and Sexuality in a Second Wave
Organization.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s
Movement, edited by J. Reger, pp. 97–116. New York: Routledge.
Glickman, Rose L. 1993. Daughters of Feminists. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hall, Elaine, and Marnie S. Rodriquez. 2003. “The Myth of Postfeminism.” Gender &
Society 17(6): 878–902.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2004. “The Semiotics of Premature Burial: Feminism in a

Postfeminist Age.” Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(Summer): 961–
986.
Page 19 of 26

Helmbold, Lois. 2002. “Classless and Clueless in NWSA: A History of the Poor and
Working Class Caucus.” NWSA Journal 14(1):58–70.
Henry, Astrid. 2004. Not My Mother’s Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave
Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Henry, Astrid. 2005. “Solitary Sisterhood: Individualism Meets Collectivity in Feminism’s

Third Wave.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement,
edited by J. Reger, pp. 81–96. New York: Routledge.
Henry, Astrid. 2011. “Waves.” In Rethinking Women and Gender Studies, edited by C. Orr,
A. Braithwaite, and D. Lichtenstein, pp. 102–118. New York: Routledge.
Hercus, Cheryl. 2005. Stepping Out of Line: Becoming and Being Feminist. New York:
Routledge.
Hernandez, Daisy, and Bushra Rehman, eds. 2002. Colonize This! Young Women of Color
on Today’s Feminism. New York: Seal Press.
Hewitt, Nancy, ed. 2010a. No Permanent Waves: Recasting Histories of U.S. Feminism.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hewitt, Nancy. 2010b. “From Seneca Falls to Suffrage: Reimagining a ‘Master’ Narrative
in U.S. Women’s History.” In No Permanent Waves: Recasting Histories of U.S. Feminism,
edited by N. A. Hewitt, pp. 15–38. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Heywood, Leslie, and Jennifer Drake. 1997. “Introduction.” In Third Wave Agenda: Being
Feminist, Doing Feminism, edited by L. Heywood and J. Drake, pp. 1–20. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Hines, Sally. 2005. “‘I am a Feminist but …’ Transgender Men and Women and
(p. 126)
Feminism.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement,

Houvouras, Shannon, and J. Scott Carter. 2008. “The F word: College Students'
Definitions of a Feminist.” Sociological Forum 23(2): 234–256.
Hurwitz, Heather McKee, and Verta Taylor. Forthcoming. “Women Occupying Wall Street:
Gender Conflict and Feminist Mobilization.” In 100 Years of the Nineteenth Amendment:
An Appraisal of Women’s Political Activism, edited by L. A. Banasak and H. J. McCammon.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jay, Karla. 1999. Tales of the Lavender Menace: A Memoir of Liberation. New York: Basic
Books.
Johnson, Merri Lisa. 2002. “Jane Hocus, Jane Focus.” In Jane Sexes It Up: True
Confessions of Feminist Desire, edited by M. L. Johnson, pp. 1–12. New York: Four Walls,
Eight Windows.
Page 20 of 26

Johnson-Bailey, Juanita. 2003. “Everyday Perspectives on Feminism: African American

Women Speak Out.” Race, Gender & Class 10(3): 82–99.
Johnston, Josee, and Judith Taylor. 2008. “Feminist Consumerism and Fat Activists: A
Comparative Study of Grassroots Activism and the Dove Real Beauty Campaign.” Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33(4): 941–966.
Kelly, Maura. 2014. “Knitting as a Feminist Project?” Women’s Studies International

Forum 44(May–June): 133–144.
King, Deborah. 1988. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black
Feminist Ideology.” Signs: Journal of Culture and Society 14(1): 42–72.
Kutz-Flamenbaum, Rachel. 2007. “Code Pink, Raging Grannies, and the Missile Dick
Chicks: Feminist Performance Activism in the Contemporary Anti-War Movement.” NWSA
Journal 19(1): 89–105.
Laughlin, Kathleen A., Julie Gallagher, Dorothy Sue Cobble, Eileen Boris, Premilla
Nadasen, Stephanie Gilmore, and Leandra Zarnow. 2010. “Is It Time to Jump Ship?
Historians Rethink the Waves Metaphor.” Feminist Formations 22(1):76–135.
Marcus, Sara. 2010. Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution. New
York: Harper.
McCabe, Janice. 2005. “What’s in a Label? The Relationship between Feminist Self-
Identification and ‘Feminist’ Attitudes among U.S. Women and Men.” Gender & Society
19(4): 480–505.
McGuire, Kristin, Abigail J. Stewart, and Nicola Curtin. 2010. “Becoming Feminist
Activists: Comparing Narratives.” Feminist Studies 36(Spring): 99–125.
Messner, Michael. 2002. Taking the Field: Women, Men and Sports. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Moraga, Cherrie, and Gloria Anzaldua, eds. 1981. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings
by Radical Women of Color. New York: Kitchen Table Women of Color Press.
Nadasen, Premilla. 2002. “Expanding the Boundaries of the Women’s Movement: Black
Feminism and the Struggle for Welfare Rights.” Feminist Studies 28(2):271–303.
Naples, Nancy. 2005. “Confronting the Future, Learning from the Past: Feminist Praxis in
the Twenty-First Century.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of The Contemporary
Women’s Movement, edited by J. Reger, pp. 215–236. New York: Routledge.
Nicholson, Linda. 2010. “Feminism in ‘Waves’: Useful Metaphor or Not?” New Politics.
http://newpol.org/content/feminism-waves-useful-metaphor-or-not (accessed
March 14, 2014).
Page 21 of 26

Orr, Catherine. 1997. “Charting the Currents of the Third Wave.” Hypatia: A Journal of
Feminist Philosophy 12(3): 29–45.
Pentney, Beth Ann. 2008. “Feminist Activism, and Knitting: Are Fibre Arts a Viable Mode
for Feminist Political Action?” thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory & culture 8(1).
http:// (p. 127) journals.sfu.ca/thirdspace/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/pentney/
210 (accessed November 25, 2016).
Peoples, Whitney. 2007. “‘Under Construction’: Identifying Foundations of Hip-Hop

Feminism and Exploring Bridges between Black Second-Wave and Hip-Hop Feminism.”
Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 8(1): 19–52.
Piepmeier, Alison. 2009. Girl Zines: Making Media, Doing Feminism. New York: New York
University Press.
Pollit, Katha. 2009. “Amber Waves of Blame.” The Nation [Online]. http://
www.thenation.com/article/amber-waves-blame (accessed November 25, 2016).
Pozner, Jennifer. 2003. “The ‘Big Lie’: False Feminist Death Syndrome, Profit, and the
Media.” In Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st Century, edited by R.
Dicker and A. Piepmeier, pp. 31–56. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Raizada, Kristen. 2007. “An Interview with the Guerilla Girls, Dyke Action Machine
(DAM!), and the Toxic Titties.” NWSA Journal 19(1): 39–58.
Raymond, Janice. [1979] 1994. The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Reger, Jo. 2012. Everywhere and Nowhere: Contemporary Feminism in the United States.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Reger, Jo. 2014. “Micro Cohorts, Feminist Generations and the Making of the Toronto
Slutwalk.” Feminist Formations 26(1): 49–69.
Reger, Jo, and Suzanne Staggenborg. 2006. “Patterns of Mobilization in Local Movement
Organizations: Leadership and Strategy in Four National Organization for Women
Chapters.” Sociological Perspectives 49(3): 297–323.
Rosenberg, Jessica, and Gitana Garofalo. 1998. “Riot Grrrl: Revolutions from Within.”
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 23(Summer): 811–841.
Roth, Benita. 2002. Separate Roads to Feminism: Black Chicana and White Feminist
Movements in America’s Second Wave. New York: Cambridge.
Roth, Silke. 2008. “Dealing with Diversity: The Coalition of Labor Union Women.” In
Identity Work in Social Movements, edited by J. Reger, D. J. Myers, and R. L. Einwohner,
pp. 213–231. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Page 22 of 26

Rupp, Leila J., and Verta Taylor. 1987. Survival in the Doldrums: The American Women’s
Rights Movement, 1945 to 1960s. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, Beth. 1988. “Political Generations in the Contemporary Women’s Movement.”

Sociological Inquiry 58: 4–21.
Schnittker, Jason, Jeremy Freese, and Brian Powell. 2003. “Who Are Feminists and What
Do They Believe?: The Role of Generations.” American Sociological Review 68: 607–622.
Schulte, Stephanie Ricker. 2011. “Review: Surfing Feminism’s Online Wave: The Internet
and the Future of Feminism.” Feminist Studies 37(3): 727–744.
Scott, Ellen K. 2005. “Beyond Tokenism: The Making of Racially Diverse Feminist
Organizations.” Social Problems 52(2): 232–254.
Shapiro, Eve. 2007. “Drag Kinging and the Transformation of Gender Identities.” Gender
& Society 21(2): 250–271.
SlutWalk Toronto (SWTO). 2011. “Who”; “Why.” https://www.facebook.com/pg/

SlutWalkToronto/about/.
Snitow, Ann, and Rachel Dupleissis. 1998. The Feminist Memoir Project: Voices from
Women’s Liberation. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Snyder, Clare. 2008. “Third Wave Feminism: A New Directions Essay.” Signs: A Journal of
Women in Culture and Society 33(4): 175–196.
Springer, Kimberly. 2005. “Strongblackwomen and Black Feminism: A Next

(p. 128)
Generation?” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement,

Staggenborg, Suzanne, and Verta Taylor. 2005. “Whatever Happened to the Women’s
Movement?” Mobilization: The International Journal of Research and Theory about Social
Movements, Protest and Collective Behavior 10(1): 37–52.
Stein, Arlene. 2010. “The Incredible Shrinking Lesbian World and Other Queer
Conundra.” Sexualities 13(1): 21–32.
Stevenson, Deborah, Christine Everingham, and Penelope Robinson. 2011. “Choices and
Life Chances: Feminism and the Politics of Generational Change.” Social Politics 18(1):
125–145.
Taft, Jessica K. 2011. Rebel Girls: Youth Activism and Social Change across the Americas.
New York: New York University Press.
Taylor, Verta. 1989. “Sources of Continuity in Social Movements: The Women’s Movement
in Abeyance.” American Sociological Review 54: 761–775.
Page 23 of 26

Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier. 1992. “Collective Identity in Social Movement
Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization.” In Frontiers in Social Movement Theory,
edited by A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, pp. 104–129. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale
University Press.
Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier. 1997. “The New Feminist Movement.” In Feminist
Frontiers IV, edited by L. Richardson, V. Taylor, and N. Whittier, pp. 544–561. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Third Wave Foundation. “Mission.” http://www.thirdwavefoundation.org/about-us/

mission/ (accessed March 2015).
Thompson, Becky. 2002. “Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second

Wave Feminism.” Feminist Studies 28: 337–360.
Walker, Rebecca. 1992. “Becoming the Third Wave.” Ms. Magazine (January–February),
39–41.
Whittier, Nancy. 1995. Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical Women’s
Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Whittier, Nancy. 1997. “Political Generations, Micro-cohorts, and the Transformation of

Social Movements.” American Sociological Review 67: 760–778.
Wilson, Ara. 2007. “Feminism in the Space of the World Forum.” Journal of International
Women’s Studies 8(3): 1–27.
Zarnow, Leandra. 2010. “From Sisterhood to Girlie Culture: Closing the Great Divide
between Second and Third Wave Cultural Agenda.” In No Permanent Waves: Recasting
Histories of U.S. Feminism, edited by N. A. Hewitt, pp. 273–302. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Notes:
(1.) 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment (“Equal Rights
Initiative in Iowa Attacked,” Washington Post, August 23, 1992).
(2.) Roth and Thompson argue that this simplified history creates an understanding of
1960s and 1970s activism that is focused on individual rights and equality with men with
little regard to class and race analyses. Nadasen combines issues of race and social class
in her analysis of the feminist underpinnings of the Welfare Rights movement in the
1960s and 1970s. Hewitt traces this back further in history and argues that when the
story of the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention is told, missing is the racial and class diversity
of activists. She argues that African-American women were particularly important in both
women’s rights and abolition efforts, a fact often left out.
Page 24 of 26

(3.) For example, Lelia Rupp and Verta Taylor document that feminism was sustained
through the “doldrums” between the first and second waves and never completely
disappeared. Kate Weigand argues that from the 1940s to the 1960s the Communist
Worker’s Party provided a place to continue a dialogue about feminism, illustrating the
murkiness of the discrete wave model. Even ideologies are not simple to characterize by
wave. For example, Stephanie Gilmore illustrates how the National Organization for
Women (NOW), often described as a moderate liberal feminist organization, actually
embraced a range of ideologies on sex and sexuality, many of which do not fit neatly into
the organization’s popular characterization.
(4.) Ginia Bellafante, “Is Feminism Dead?” Time Magazine 151 (1998): 25. http://
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988616-2,00.html .
(5.) http://time.com/3576870/worst-words-poll-2014/.
(6.) The “slutwalks” emerged in 2011 after a Toronto police officer was quoted as saying
if women dress like “sluts,” they put themselves in danger of sexual assault. Within a
short period of time, “slutwalks” were organized around the globe, sparking new
mobilization around sexual assault and rape. While the “slutwalks” seemed to invigorate
the movement, they prompted debates (divided by issues of generation and race) on the
use of the word “slut” as empowering (Reger 2014).
(7.) As reported in Tamara Straus, “Is Feminism Dead?” Alternet, www.alternet.org,

February 11, 2000. See also Lois Helmbold, “Classless and Clueless in NWSA: A History
of the Poor and Working Class Caucus, NWSA Journal 14(1) (2002): 58–70.
(8.) Jenevieve Ting, “Angela Davis’s Legacy of Collective Solidarity,” Ms. Magazine,
February 26, 2015, http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/02/26/angela-daviss-legacy-of-
collective-solidarity .
Jo Reger
Jo Reger is a Professor of Sociology and the Director of Women and Gender Studies
at Oakland University in Michigan and the author of numerous works, including
Everywhere and Nowhere: Contemporary Feminism in the United States. She is a
scholar of social movements, gender, and theory.
Page 25 of 26

Page 26 of 26

Contemporary Feminism

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Contemporary Feminism

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Contemporary Feminism and Beyond

Oxford Handbooks Online

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Together, this combination of accomplishment and cultural change mixed with

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

(p. 110) Origins of the “Third Wave”

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

early twenty-first-century feminists to be understood as coming into feminism in a

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Who Are Contemporary Feminists?

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Race and Ethnicity in the Movement

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

(p. 118) Organizations, Networks, and Communities

While acknowledging the existence of national-level organizations provides proof of

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Tactics, Strategies, and Goals

Writers and scholars have characterized contemporary feminism as undergoing a tactical

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

However, it is inaccurate to characterize all contemporary feminism as focused on

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

In sum, contemporary feminists resemble other generations of feminists in many ways.

(p. 121) Future Directions for Research

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Race and Ethnicity in the Movement

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Looking in Unexpected Places

Aronson, Pamela. 2003. “Feminists or ‘Postfeminists’? Young Women’s Attitudes toward

Defining the Vicissitudes of Feminism.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Chancer, Lynn S. 1998. Reconcilable Differences: Confronting Beauty, Pornography and

Combahee River Collective. 1979. “Combahee River Collective: A Black Feminist

Daniels, Jesse. 2009. “Rethinking Cyberfeminism(s): Race, Gender, and Embodiment.”

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Everett, Anna. 2004. “On Cyberfeminism and Cyberwomanism: High-Tech Mediations of

New York: Crown Publishers.

Garrison, Ednie K. 2005. “Are We on a Wavelength Yet? On Feminist Oceanography,

Hawkesworth, Mary. 2004. “The Semiotics of Premature Burial: Feminism in a

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Henry, Astrid. 2005. “Solitary Sisterhood: Individualism Meets Collectivity in Feminism’s

Feminism.” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement,

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Johnson-Bailey, Juanita. 2003. “Everyday Perspectives on Feminism: African American

Kelly, Maura. 2014. “Knitting as a Feminist Project?” Women’s Studies International

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Peoples, Whitney. 2007. “‘Under Construction’: Identifying Foundations of Hip-Hop

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Schneider, Beth. 1988. “Political Generations in the Contemporary Women’s Movement.”

SlutWalk Toronto (SWTO). 2011. “Who”; “Why.” https://www.facebook.com/pg/

Springer, Kimberly. 2005. “Strongblackwomen and Black Feminism: A Next

Generation?” In Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement,

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

Third Wave Foundation. “Mission.” http://www.thirdwavefoundation.org/about-us/

Thompson, Becky. 2002. “Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second

Whittier, Nancy. 1997. “Political Generations, Micro-cohorts, and the Transformation of

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 30 August 2018

(7.) As reported in Tamara Straus, “Is Feminism Dead?” Alternet, www.alternet.org,