Response to Levy and Echols Articles

Levy’s The Future That Never Happens gives an interesting view into Susan Brownmiller’s views on the feminist movement, while also giving a fresh commentary on the two different types of “feminist” movements that have occurred in the last ~50 years.  Some of the arguments and ideas of Brownmiller seem to me to be particularly thought provoking.  I felt that many of her arguments are dated, suggesting we have made significant progress as a society since her time.

On the first few pages of the chapter, Levy gives a background on Susan Brownmiller, including several quotes that succinctly sum up her position.  The first idea that I took issue with was that marriage is “an arrangement that usually corralled women back toward the subservient lives their mothers had lived, instead of forward into the glorious futures.”  While I understand the point that Brownmiller tries to take by supporting a statement like that, I completely disagree with her viewpoint.  Brownmiller and feminists like her attempt to spin the conception of marriage into a slave-like relationship between the wife and husband, which could not be further from the truth in my opinion.  I understand the idea that marriages often include a struggle for power within the couple or family, and that typically in the past women have often fallen below men, yet I would like to think that the idea of marriage has changed dramatically since Brownmiller wrote.  Today, I think that a standard marriage is far more balanced, often with women taking control of the finances or power within the family.  Last year, I was in Gender in the Economy, which led me to believe that there are far more women leading lives acting both as the stereotypical mother in the family as well as the stereotypical businesswoman leading a successful career, allowing both the husband and wife to provide financial support.  I would be interested to see what someone like Brownmiller would say today about the new familial relationships that have developed since her time.

The second idea that I found most thought provoking in the reading came from Echols’s article.  I thought that the comparison between the black power movement and the feminist movement was surprising.  Black power groups broke off from negotiating and working with white participants because “integration was nothing more than a ‘subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy.’”  Black power groups have gained a negative connotation, mainly due to the violence that characterized them, and especially when contrasted with the peaceful movements of those such as MLK.  I find it odd that women chose a similar route to black power advocates and broke off all negotiations and dialogue with men.  In my opinion, it is moves like these that have given feminists the negative stereotypes that they currently have to contend with in future negotiations.  While the splitting off of women from coed feminist groups may have advanced the speed of their movement, it seems to me that it effectively infected the movement with a negative feel that they have not been able to shake yet.  It is interesting to think about the possibility of what would have happened if they had instead actively pursued coed discussions.