Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women

Backlash\ \ By Susan Faludi \ Random House\ Susan Faludi\ All right reserved.\ ISBN: 0307345424 \ \ \ Chapter One\ INTRODUCTION: BLAME IT ON FEMINISM\ \ \ To be a woman in America at the close of the 20th century-what good fortune. That's what we keep hearing, anyway. The barricades have fallen, politicians assure us. Women have "made it," Madison Avenue cheers. Women's fight for equality has "largely been won," Time magazine announces. Enroll at any university, join any law firm, apply for credit at any bank. Women have so many opportunities now, corporate leaders say, that we don't really need equal opportunity policies. Women are so equal now, lawmakers say, that we no longer need an Equal Rights Amendment. Women have "so much," former President Ronald Reagan says, that the White House no longer needs to appoint them to higher office. Even American Express ads are saluting a woman's freedom to charge it. At last, women have received their full citizenship papers.\ \ And yet . . .\ \ Behind this celebration of the American woman's victory, behind the news, cheerfully and endlessly repeated, that the struggle for women's rights is won, another message flashes. You may be free and equal now, it says to women, but you have never been more miserable.\ \ This bulletin of despair is posted everywhere-at the newsstand, on the TV set, at the movies, in advertisements and doctors' offices and academic journals. Professional women are suffering"burnout" and succumbing to an "infertility epidemic." Single women are grieving from a "man shortage." The New York Times reports: Childless women are "depressed and confused" and their ranks are swelling. Newsweek says: Unwed women are "hysterical" and crumbling under a "profound crisis of confidence." The health advice manuals inform: High-powered career women are stricken with unprecedented outbreaks of "stress-induced disorders," hair loss, bad nerves, alcoholism, and even heart attacks. The psychology books advise: Independent women's loneliness represents "a major mental health problem today." Even founding feminist Betty Friedan has been spreading the word: she warns that women now suffer from a new identity crisis and "new 'problems that have no name.'"\ \ How can American women be in so much trouble at the same time that they are supposed to be so blessed? If the status of women has never been higher, why is their emotional state so low? If women got what they asked for, what could possibly be the matter now?\ \ The prevailing wisdom of the past decade has supported one, and only one, answer to this riddle: it must be all that equality that's causing all that pain. Women are unhappy precisely because they are free. Women are enslaved by their own liberation. They have grabbed at the gold ring of independence, only to miss the one ring that really matters. They have gained control of their fertility, only to destroy it. They have pursued their own professional dreams-and lost out on the greatest female adventure. The women's movement, as we are told time and again, has proved women's own worst enemy.\ \ "In dispensing its spoils, women's liberation has given my generation high incomes, our own cigarette, the option of single parenthood, rape crisis centers, personal lines of credit, free love, and female gynecologists," Mona Charen, a young law student, writes in the National Review, in an article titled "The Feminist Mistake." "In return it has effectively robbed us of one thing upon which the happiness of most women rests-men." The National Review is a conservative publication, but such charges against the women's movement are not confined to its pages. "Our generation was the human sacrifice" to the women's movement, Los Angeles Times feature writer Elizabeth Mehren contends in a Time cover story. Baby-boom women like her, she says, have been duped by feminism: "We believed the rhetoric." In Newsweek, writer Kay Ebeling dubs feminism "The Great Experiment That Failed" and asserts "women in my generation, its perpetrators, are the casualties." Even the beauty magazines are saying it: Harper's Bazaar accuses the women's movement of having "lost us [women] ground instead of gaining it."\ \ In the last decade, publications from the New York Times to Vanity Fair to the Nation have issued a steady stream of indictments against the women's movement, with such headlines as when feminism failed or the awful truth about women's lib. They hold the campaign for women's equality responsible for nearly every woe besetting women, from mental depression to meager savings accounts, from teenage suicides to eating disorders to bad complexions. The "Today" show says women's liberation is to blame for bag ladies. A guest columnist in the Baltimore Sun even proposes that feminists produced the rise in slasher movies. By making the "violence" of abortion more acceptable, the author reasons, women's rights activists made it all right to show graphic murders on screen.\ \ At the same time, other outlets of popular culture have been forging the same connection: in Hollywood films, of which Fatal Attraction is only the most famous, emancipated women with condominiums of their own slink wild-eyed between bare walls, paying for their liberty with an empty bed, a barren womb. "My biological clock is ticking so loud it keeps me awake at night," Sally Field cries in the film Surrender, as, in an all too common transformation in the cinema of the '80s, an actress who once played scrappy working heroines is now showcased groveling for a groom. In prime-time television shows, from "thirtysomething" to "Family Man," single, professional, and feminist women are humiliated, turned into harpies, or hit by nervous breakdowns; the wise ones recant their independent ways by the closing sequence. In popular novels, from Gail Parent's A Sign of the Eighties to Stephen King's Misery, unwed women shrink to sniveling spinsters or inflate to fire-breathing she-devils; renouncing all aspirations but marriage, they beg for wedding bands from strangers or swing sledgehammers at reluctant bachelors. We "blew it by waiting," a typically remorseful careerist sobs in Freda Bright's Singular Women; she and her sister professionals are "condemned to be childless forever." Even Erica Jong's high-flying independent heroine literally crashes by the end of the decade, as the author supplants Fear of Flying's saucy Isadora Wing, a symbol of female sexual emancipation in the '70s, with an embittered careerist-turned-recovering-"co-dependent" in Any Woman's Blues-a book that is intended, as the narrator bluntly states, "to demonstrate what a dead end the so-called sexual revolution had become, and how desperate so-called free women were in the last few years of our decadent epoch."\ \ Popular psychology manuals peddle the same diagnosis for contemporary female distress. "Feminism, having promised her a stronger sense of her own identity, has given her little more than an identity crisis," the best-selling advice manual Being a Woman asserts. The authors of the era's self-help classic Smart Women/Foolish Choices proclaim that women's distress was "an unfortunate consequence of feminism," because "it created a myth among women that the apex of self-realization could be achieved only through autonomy, independence, and career."\ \ In the Reagan and Bush years, government officials have needed no prompting to endorse this thesis. Reagan spokeswoman Faith Whittlesey declared feminism a "straitjacket" for women, in the White House's only policy speech on the status of the American female population-entitled "Radical Feminism in Retreat." Law enforcement officers and judges, too, have pointed a damning finger at feminism, claiming that they can chart a path from rising female independence to rising female pathology. As a California sheriff explained it to the press, "Women are enjoying a lot more freedom now, and as a result, they are committing more crimes." The U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography even proposed that women's professional advancement might be responsible for rising rape rates. With more women in college and at work now, the commission members reasoned in their report, women just have more opportunities to be raped.\ \ Some academics have signed on to the consensus, too-and they are the "experts" who have enjoyed the highest profiles on the media circuit. On network news and talk shows, they have advised millions of women that feminism has condemned them to "a lesser life." Legal scholars have railed against "the equality trap." Sociologists have claimed that "feminist-inspired" legislative reforms have stripped women of special "protections." Economists have argued that well-paid working women have created "a less stable American family." And demographers, with greatest fanfare, have legitimated the prevailing wisdom with so-called neutral data on sex ratios and fertility trends; they say they actually have the numbers to prove that equality doesn't mix with marriage and motherhood.\ \ Finally, some "liberated" women themselves have joined the lamentations. In confessional accounts, works that invariably receive a hearty greeting from the publishing industry, "recovering Superwomen" tell all. In The Cost of Loving: Women and the New Fear of Intimacy, Megan Marshall, a Harvard-pedigreed writer, asserts that the feminist "Myth of Independence" has turned her generation into unloved and unhappy fast-trackers, "dehumanized" by careers and "uncertain of their gender identity." Other diaries of mad Superwomen charge that "the hard-core feminist viewpoint," as one of them puts it, has relegated educated executive achievers to solitary nights of frozen dinners and closet drinking. The triumph of equality, they report, has merely given women hives, stomach cramps, eye-twitching disorders, even comas.\ \ But what "equality" are all these authorities talking about?\ \ If American women are so equal, why do they represent two-thirds of all poor adults? Why are nearly 75 percent of full-time working women making less than $20,000 a year, nearly double the male rate? Why are they still far more likely than men to live in poor housing and receive no health insurance, and twice as likely to draw no pension? Why does the average working woman's salary still lag as far behind the average man's as it did twenty years ago? Why does the average female college graduate today earn less than a man with no more than a high school diploma just as she did in the '50s)-and why does the average female high school graduate today earn less than a male high school dropout? Why do American women, in fact, face one of the worstgender-based pay gap in the developed world?\ \ If women have "made it," then why are nearly 80 percent of working women still stuck in traditional "female" jobs-as secretaries, administrative "support" workers and salesclerks? And, conversely, why are they less than 8 percent of all federal and state judges, less than 6 percent of all law partners, and less than one half of 1 percent of top corporate managers? Why are there only three female state governors, two female U.S. senators, and two Fortune 500 chief executives? Why are only nineteen of the four thousand corporate officers and directors women-and why do more than half the boards of Fortune companies still lack even one female member?\ \ If women "have it all," then why don't they have the most basic requirements to achieve equality in the work force? Unlike virtually all other industrialized nations, the U.S. government still has no family-leave and child care programs-and more than 99 percent of American private employers don't offer child care either. Though business leaders say they are aware of and deplore sex discrimination, corporate America has yet to make an honest effort toward eradicating it. In a 1990 national poll of chief executives at Fortune 1000 companies, more than 80 percent acknowledged that discrimination impedes female employees' progress-yet, less than 1 percent of these same companies regarded remedying sex discrimination as a goal that their personnel departments should pursue. In fact, when the companies' human resource officers were asked to rate their department's priorities, women's advancement ranked last.\ \ If women are so "free," why are their reproductive freedoms in greater jeopardy today than a decade earlier? Why do women who want to postpone childbearing now have fewer options than ten years ago? The availability of different forms of contraception has declined, research for new birth control has virtually halted, new laws restricting abortion-or even information about abortion-for young and poor women have been passed, and the U.S. Supreme Court has shown little ardor in defending the right it granted in 1973.\ \ Nor is women's struggle for equal education over; as a 1989 study found, three-fourths of all high schools still violate the federal law banning sex discrimination in education. In colleges, undergraduate women receive only 70 percent of the aid undergraduate men get in grants and work-study jobs-and women's sports programs receive a pittance compared with men's. A review of state equal-education laws in the late '80s found that only thirteen states had adopted the minimum provisions required by the federal Title IX law-and only seven states had anti-discrimination regulations that covered all education levels.\ \ Nor do women enjoy equality in their own homes, where they still shoulder 70 percent of the household duties-and the only major change in the last fifteen years is that now middle-class men think they do more around the house. (In fact, a national poll finds the ranks of women saying their husbands share equally in child care shrunk to 31 percent in 1987 from 40 percent three years earlier.) Furthermore, in thirty states, it is still generally legal for husbands to rape their wives; and only ten states have laws mandating arrest for domestic violence-even though battering was the leading cause of injury of women in the late '80s. Women who have no other option but to flee find that isn't much of an alternative either. Federal funding for battered women's shelters has been withheld and one third of the 1 million battered women who seek emergency shelter each year can find none. Blows from men contributed far more to rising numbers of "bag ladies" than the ill effects of feminism. In the '80s, almost half of all homeless women (the fastest growing segment of the homeless) were refugees of domestic violence.\ \ The word may be that women have been "liberated," but women themselves seem to feel otherwise. Repeatedly in national surveys, majorities of women say they are still far from equality.\ \ Continues... \ \ \ \ Excerpted from Backlash by Susan Faludi Excerpted by permission.\ All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.\ Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site. \ \

\ Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly\ Far from being ``liberated,'' American women in the 1980s were victims of a powerful backlash against the handful of small, hard-won victories the feminist movement had achieved, says Wall Street Journal reporter Faludi, who won a Pulitzer this year. Buttressing her argument with facts and statistics, she states that the alleged ``man shortage'' endangering women's chances of marrying (posited by a Harvard-Yale study) and the ``infertility epidemic'' said to strike professional women who postpone childbearing are largely media inventions. She finds evidence of antifeminist backlash in Hollywood movies, in TV's thirtysomething , in 1980s fashion ads featuring battered models and in the New Right's attack on women's rights. She directs withering commentary at Robert Bly's all-male workshops, Allan Bloom's ``prolonged rant'' against women and Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer's revisionism. This eloquent, brilliantly argued book should be read by everyone concerned about gender equality. First serial to Glamour and Mother Jones. (Nov.)\ \ \ \ \ Library JournalFaludi, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Wall Street Journal , marshals in a sustained and excoriating 500-plus pages what many thoughtful women already know: it isn't that the goals of the feminist movement have failed, but that they have not yet been tried. Placing the current backlash against women squarely in a historical context (in the 19th century so-called experts told women that education would atrophy their wombs), she debunks the shoddy scholarship and half-truths that produced the myths we hear today: that women are fleeing the workplace to stay home and ``cocoon''; that their chances of marrying diminish greatly if they don't marry young; that their lack of advancement is their own fault. She argues that women's anger and resentment are not due to their feminism, but occur because women have not yet been the beneficiaries of the justice, fairness, and equity they deserve. Along the way, Faludi demolishes the anti-feminist agendas of Robert Bly's ``wild men,'' Allan Bloom ( Closing of the American Mind , LJ 5/1/87), and George Gilder ( Sexual Suicide , LJ 8/73), among others. This is most important book.-- GraceAnne A. DeCandido, ``School Library Journal''\ \ \ Library JournalFaludi's 1991 best seller got down and dirty with all the antifeminism backlash that she asserted was still keeping women second-class citizens in the work force and in greater society in general. The younger generation perhaps isn't as interested in feminism as their mothers, and Faludi's new introduction points out that while women have been able to "achieve economic goals, we have yet to find a way to turn those gains toward the larger and more meaningful goals of social change, responsible citizenship, the advancement of human creativity, and the building of a mature and vital public world." Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.\ \ \ \ \ BooknewsReprint of the Crown Publishers edition of 1991. Unaugmented. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)\ \ \ \ \ Kirkus ReviewsThe Pulitzer-winning journalist (The Wall Street Journal, Ms., The Miami Herald) explores the real status of American women in the 90's in this powerful and long-overdue myth-buster—an instant classic and a valuable companion to Paula Kamen's Feminist Fatale (reviewed below). College-educated women over 30 are more likely to be killed by a terrorist than to marry. Working women enjoy their careers at the expense of their children's welfare. If you're female, you can't really have it all. So go the modern myths that were born in the 80's, despite the era's supposedly "liberated" image, and that have terrorized American women ever since. The trouble, claims Faludi, is not only that the myths aren't true, but that through deliberate action or passive collusion the government, media, and popular culture have ensured their overpowering influence on the public. Her interest sparked by her discovery that the Harvard-Yale marriage-for-women-over-30 study was based on very shaky methodology, but that there was resistance in both the media and government to correcting its conclusions, Faludi went on to uncover the unacknowledged but frighteningly widespread backlash against feminism that has taken place under the surface of 80's careerism. Taking the reader step by step through the creation of wildly anti- feminist 80's myths and backlashes in popular culture (Fatal Attraction, the "New Traditionalism," the new "feminine" fashions); in politics (reproductive rights, the female New Right); in popular psychology ("to improve your marriage, change yourself"); in the workplace (lack of day care, parental leave, the wage gap); and in health (white career women's supposed sterility vs. blackwomen's actual, unaddressed, sterility problem), Faludi convincingly peels back layers of deliberate and passive misrepresentation to reveal what she sees as the underlying message of the Reagan-Bush era: Women's problems are a direct result of too much independence, and no one but feminists are to blame. Historically, backlashes have always followed feminist gains, Faludi points out; the necessity is to see behind today's hip "postfeminist" apathy to the injustices still being done. Brilliant reportage, with all the details in place—a stunning debut.\ \