by Andrea Garrett
"Generation X women preface a statement with 'I'm not a feminist, but... 'Boomers are concerned when Generation X women are quick to claim the benefits of feminism and equally as quick to disavow any association with it" (Ritchie 66). This statement, made in Ritchie's article entitled "Marketing To Generation X", has become the popular generalization of youth's attitude towards feminism. Is this true? Are Generation Xers lacking in the feminist values that should have been instilled in them early on? Does the writing and literature of our youth articulate this narrow-minded generalization? Has the meaning of feminism possibly changed to simply a set of principles that women live by? I personally view myself as a feminist, not because I am politically active, but because I am a head-strong, proud female. Is this the way the media percieves feminism, as each individual woman for herself or as a conglomeration of women? To determine this, let us examine a few Generation X authors, Souljah, Neidorf, and Curry-Johnson.
In Sister Souljah's No Disrespect, the answer to all of these questions is quite clear. Although I do not share many of her opinions, I still view her as a feminist. She represents herself as a strong black woman. She is angered by the flaggrant disrespect men repeatedly display to women. She is not a feminist in the traditional sense. That is, she is not simply active for the sake of feminism, but her beliefs are nonetheless evident in her writing. She has flaws and she is willing to admit to these flaws. She establishes independence in her relationships. She is her own woman, not there to let any man walk all over her. This can be seen in her relationships to men. Pnce a man has "crossed the line", he is out. She is infuriated by her mother's submission to men, as well as her nonchalant attitude with regards to the way they treat her. Souljah is more so infuriated by the way her mother almost welcomes these men to use her. She wants women to be proud of what and who they are, but let them know that men should love them for their mind and soul, not their body or appearance. Souljah writes, "Yet when I would wear a button-down blouse she would tell me to unfasten the top three buttons. I resisted, saying I didn't want my breasts to show. She would say a little cleavage never hurt anybody, loosen up, it's sexy (42)." Souljah's beliefs are very clear-cut and defined. She makes it quite apparent just where she stands throughout her book. She wants to let women know that yes, they may fall from this media-generated pedestal of feminism, but despite their mistakes they must find unity in their ongoing fight for the feminist movement.
Like Souljah, Neidorf exhibits qualities of a true feminist. She is strong in her convictions and values her confrontational attitude towards life. To Neidorf, life is a dashing and bold adventure. She writes, "Jews fight. We have to. It is born in us. It is demanded of us if we are to survive. For a young feminist, this is a rich legacy, one that provides a model of social behavior that values confrontation." Through Neidorf's words and actions it is obvious too where she stands. Like Jews, feminists must fight for their freedom. They must stand firm by their convictions and like Ritchie stated, they must not only "claim the benefits of feminism", but also the "association with it". Neidorf does just this.
She writes of her Bat Mitzvah ceremony where the project she presented was "based on several months of study of the social constraints placed on women in Israel"(213). She defies what is considered tradition. She is torn between the patriarcy of Jewish life and the matriarchy of her own. She writes, "It is a contradiction to see the strength of women within the traditions of the oldest patriarchy in the world (215)." It is difficult for her to be both Jewish and feminist. She writes, "Two ways of coping, each with its disadvantages. One group tries to reconcile and continues to fall short; one group withdraws and thus misses the rituals of Jewish life that give the comfort of familiar community (Neidorf 218)." She finds a happy medium within her religion and her own personal beliefs. She does not sucumb to the media's generalization of young adult writers. I think Neidorf's article is very effective in that it defies the media's generalization of young adult writers being "anti-feminist". If there is anything Neidorf is, it is not "anti-feminist".
Curry-Johnson, like the two prior authors, is a feminist. Like Neidorf, Curry-Johnson is torn between her personal beliefs and the beliefs and views of her church. She writes, "For example, whether we were raised Islamic, Babtist, Catholic, Jewish, or Mormon, we may miss something when we reject, for the sake of our own integrity, the religion of our parents solely because of the positions women hold (or don't hold) within its doctrine. Must we now be without spiritual guidance because people within our religions are afraid to change (Curry-Johnson 223)?" She is confused. She knows where she stands on each independantly, but she has trouble putting the two together.
In Curry-Johnson's article she includes an excerpt from Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. It reads, "Men and Women are equals and should be treated as equals." Then, almost purposefully contradictory, Curry-Johnson writes, "My husband is working outside the home while I stay home with our son and daughter (227)." It is as if she has disregarded her own feminist beliefs. She then supports this statement by saying "They conveniently forget that my husband was the primary caregiver for our son when he was first born, enabling me to finish my first semester of my last year of school with peace of mind (227)." From these above statements we can come to the conclusion that Curry-Johnson believes man and woman should share the roles of parenting equally. She does not believe that it is a bad thing to stay home and be a mother to your children. Actually I don't believe she sees anything "anti-feminist" about that. Curry-Johnsons article, I believe, is quite effective in that it gives the public a new idea of feminism. A woman does not have to be single competing in the business world to be a feminist. She can be a mother, a student, a writer, or a Christian. Curry-Johnson is all of these things.
These three authors, in my opinion, do not fall into the generalized catagory of Generation X authors. They are all feminist. Maybe it is simply that the youth's view of feminism has changed, while the media's has not. Maybe the media needs to re-examine what being a feminist in our generation means. Does it mean being a career woman or a mother? Does it by some stretch of the imagination possibly mean being both?