So in my Southern Renaissance Literature class, we’re talking about two famous and influential black scholars and activists during the Reconstruction period: WEB DuBois and Booker T Washington. (Don’t worry, this will connect back to feminism, I promise)
The two had two very different approaches on how to integrate now freed African-Americans into society.
This is a very rough low-down so I can get to my bigger point.
WEB DuBois wanted to focus on something called “The Talented Tenth.” He believed that if one in ten black people went on to become classically educated and became some of Americas greatest scholars, poets, musicians, engineers, politicians, etc. that black men would earn a place in society (I use men specifically, because this opportunity wasn’t extended to black women, but that’s not the subject of this blog post).
While that sounds great and all, my question is: what about the other 90%? DuBois doesn’t do much to address them (of course, I’m not super well-read on all of his plans and theories, so he might have, but in the big picture, they’re left mostly ignored).
Then there is Booker T Washington, who believed that vocational schooling was the best course for all black men. As soon as they could master a trade and earn a living, white men wouldn’t care whether a black man or a white man made their horse hooves as long as they had the same skill. And thus they could integrate themselves through society this way.
It’s much more of a “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” kind of way, with an accessibility to everyone.
But, the argument here is, the gradualism to integrate blacks into society might take too long if you just leave it at that (and again, I know for a fact both theories are much more in depth than this, so excuse my crudeness). And then there’s some sort of glass-ceiling hovering over their heads.
I feel like the same problem exists within feminism today. There are those feminists who are upset because powerful business women are encountering glass-ceilings, and they want more Marissa Mayers in the world. While our numbers are thankfully larger than 10% of women leading successful careers, it still poses of problem of those left over.
There are so many women who are living in impoverished circumstances, who make up the majority of jobs as waitresses, janitors/cleaning ladies, and other similar low-grade jobs in that sector. They have a trade, they have a means of making money, like Booker T Washington proposed, but there seems to be no chance of improvement or enrichment for their lives.
I think we need a philosophy that bridges this gap, a middle ground. There needs to be a means to help the women who are barely getting by and surviving and elevate their living conditions, if only slightly. And to ensure better opportunities for their children as well. I’m a pragmatist, I know that not all women are going to become wealthy, middle-class citizens who’s biggest worry is how to balance their flourishing career and being a proactive mother and manage their home. Not all men will belong to that class, either.
It just seems like this widening gap, between women who are born in already feminist-value friendly environments and demanding more, and women who aren’t, and have no means to change their environments at all. But if we could find some way to bridge that gap slightly, to lessen the dramatic difference in conditions, then it would be a service to both men and women, to families and children, to the future!
I feel like redefining gender norms/breaking stereotypes are second to the living conditions of some women today. Issues of rape/consent, and respect, and conduct are important, don’t get me wrong. But these conversations feel very…middle-class? I get the impression that the women who are discussing ideas such as these (profound and important ideas) aren’t the women who are suffering under the thumb of society, patriarchal or not. I feel like, personally, I would give up some of my privilege, some of my “equality” that I have encountered constantly and has caused me to believe that feminism is no longer needed, to ensure a woman had access to the resources she needed to feed her children.
But it doesn’t work like that.
Because at a point, feminism is just rhetoric when there are people out there suffering, people you might pass in the grocery store and never realize it. And maybe they’re not suffering because of their gender per se, but why do we seem to be focusing on only those with some already established privilege when discuss feminism? What about the struggling single Mom on government aid to support her children, who’s barely scraping by, who’s working more than one job, who’s on the brink of homelessness? How does feminism help her? How can we change it so it does help her?