Debating third wave feminism

I’ve mentioned a few times on this blog that I wrote a dissertation last year that dealt with certain strands of third wave feminism. Third wave feminism by in large is a pretty broad label to give to a ‘wave’ of feminist activism and thought that emerged from the 1990s onwards. In some ways, third wave feminism is very confrontational – it has challenged second wave feminism – not only in theory, but also in the modes of organising and the very definition of feminism itself. There is also considerable disagreement between the feminisms that make up Third Wave Feminism.


Thus, from an academic point of view, I was very intrigued by the debate that emerged on the Hand Mirror today, as well as on Young Wellington Feminist Collective Facebook and also the personal blogs of members of the Young Wellington Feminist Collective. For me, it represents one of the tensions inherent in third wave feminism – the need to bring feminism down from the ivory tower of academic feminism and to spread it to the masses in an accessible, fun and dare I say, sexy way. Yet at the same time, there is also the need to engage and debate the meaning of feminism and the appropriateness of particular ways of organising.


Although I’m not a member of the YWFC (although I do ‘like’; it on facebook), I do know a number of the members and the organisations blog is one of must visit blogs each morning. In saying that, I don’t have first-hand experience of the organisation. From what I can tell though is that the organisation is generally awesome. I think it plays an important role in making feminism accessible and relevant to a wider audience who may have not seen feminism as legitimate political perspective before. In many ways, YWFC seems to embody many third wave principles.

As I said before, not all the feminisms in the Third Wave agree with each other – you only have to look to the countless feminist blogs to see some of the friction between the third wavers. A lecture once said that during a gender studies class that all the ‘feminisms’ should metaphorically live in one big house of feminism, but have separate rooms divided by rice paper. That way, people could still have their own space, but they wouldn’t be divided enough that they wouldn’t be able to still engage with each other. It’s a nice analogy.


This analogy explains why to me, if you are going to establish a feminist organisation, you have to be prepared to be challenged regarding its feminist principles. At the very heart of the rice paper walls analogy is the importance of debate and the importance of this debate, in enabling organisations to develop their own feminist stances and beliefs. The feminist movement never moved forward because people shied away from debate, it moved forward because people vocally and loudly, and even sometimes in abrasive ways, challenged society and the movement itself. From a personal example, I might not be a feminist today (although I’d like to think I would be) if someone hadn’t challenged me on my previous beliefs – I used to say “I’m not a feminist, I’m a humanist. I think everyone should have rights!”. People challenging me on my own views has enabled me to develop what I think feminism is, and how I practice it.


I haven’t quite figured out my position on the post at the Hand Mirror – I think one of the comments written by Alison best describe my thoughts at the moment. I think the point that I’m really trying to get at is that if you are going to create a feminist group that is open to the public, you need to be able to rise to the challenges that people will inevitably throw at you. Sure, it might not feel like a whole load of love is being thrown around, but a political movement (even the social aspects) aren’t always going to be a love fest, especially a movement like feminism where it is inherently so personal.