250 word discussion post

 What were some of the main concerns of second-wave feminism?  To what extent did it include the concerns of women of color? What are some of the problems women encounter in uniting in a cause that other minorities don’t face?  Besides being good for a laugh, what is the purpose of Steinem’s essay? How does it encapsulate the central concerns of second-wave feminism? 

Only resources below can be used to answer discussion post no other sources are permitted:

1. Kevin Reilly human journey book ch.12 (will give you access to) 

2.  

Second-Wave Feminism without White Women

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0xwxae6Q4&feature=youtu.be

3. If Men Could Menstruate By Gloria Steinem ( I attached this) 

4.   Betty Friedan and black women By Michelle Bernard (I attached this)

Betty Friedan and black women: Is it time for a second look? By Michelle Bernard Feb. 21, 2013 at 5:40 a.m. PST

Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” turned 50 this week. At the time of its publication, “Singletons” (circa 1963 defined as an unmarried woman) did not have a legal right to birth control. Married women did not have equal access to credit. In some states, married women could not get a job without the permission of their husbands. Occupational segregation was the norm. The wage gap was more like a wage canyon. Sexual harassment of women in the workplace was not yet legally actionable. Abortion was illegal. Every state in the nation required “fault-based” grounds for divorce. Spousal rape was not a crime in most states. All of this changed for all American women in the wake of Friedan’s tome. Second wave feminism was born. The National Organization for Women was founded. The call for equality and women’s rights would resound in every cell of the American body politic. All American women owe Friedan a debt of gratitude.

Yet, despite all of the above, as an African American woman, I can say that I have never met a black woman who admits to having read “The Feminine Mystique.” I have never heard a black woman of a certain age recite with the nostalgia what I refer to as “the Friedan anthem” – “The Problem with No Name.”

On the 50th anniversary of “The Feminine Mystique,” I can’t help but ask where are the voices of the millions of black and working class women who have fought against gender and race discrimination in celebrating Friedan. Why have we not seen a groundswell of black and working class women standing up to celebrate the many achievements in women’s liberty that were wrought as a result of Friedan’s work? And even more importantly, why is it that despite all of the battles that all American women have had to fight in order to share equally in the pursuit of the American dream with our testosterone-laden partners, so few black women call themselves feminists? Why is it that so few of us have had so little to do with second wave feminism?

Admittedly, I have not read “The Feminine Mystique.” I chose not to read it because I knew it did not include the lives of African American women.

I, like many of my African American classmates at that time, believed that by failing to include the lives of African American women, “The Feminine Mystique” could not possibly speak to the needs of African American women of our mothers’ generation, let alone our own.

Whether poverty-stricken, working class, middle class, or wealthy, many of the black women of my generation and that of our foremothers mistakenly believed that Friedan’s work spoke only to a privileged class of white women who had nothing better to do than whine about how difficult life was as a stay at home mother. Married or not, many of our foremothers and many women of my generation were working class women for whom work outside of the home was a financial necessity. Married or not, many of our foremothers were middle class women who chose to work outside the home simply because they wished to do so. Married or not, there were, by any standard, wealthy African American women who made a decision to stay at home while others made a decision to work outside the home.

Yet for all of these black women, there were two major problems that had to be confronted — being black and being a woman at a time when there were virtually no meaningful legal protections against race or gender discrimination.

I am celebrating all of the women who fought the battles that have allowed women of my generation, black and white, to more fully realize the American Dream.

If Men Could Menstruate

By Gloria Steinem, Ms. Magazine, October 1978

A white minority of the world has spent centuries conning us into thinking that a white skin makes

people superior—even though the only thing it really does is make them more subject to ultraviolet rays

and to wrinkles. Male human beings have built whole cultures around the idea that penis-envy is

“natural” to women—though having such an unprotected organ might be said to make men vulnerable,

and the power to give birth makes womb-envy at least as logical.

In short, the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the

characteristics of the powerless—and logic has nothing to do with it.

What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?

The answer is clear—menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:

Men would brag about how long and how much.

Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag

parties.

Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to help stamp out monthly discomforts.

Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the

prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammad Ali’s Rope-a-dope Pads,

Joe Namath Jock Shields—“For Those Light Bachelor Days,” and Robert “Baretta” Blake Maxi-Pads.)

Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation (“menstruation”) as proof that only men could serve in the Army (“you have to give blood to take blood”),

occupy political office (“can women be aggressive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet

Mars?”), be priest and ministers (“how could a woman give her blood for our sins?”) or rabbis (“without

the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean”).

Male radicals, left-wing politicians, mystics, however, would insist that women are equal, just different,

and that any woman could enter their ranks if she were willing to self-inflict a major wound every month

(“you MUST give blood for the revolution”), recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or

subordinate her selfness to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment. Street guys would brag (“I’m a three

pad man”) or answer praise from a buddy (“Man, you lookin‘ good!”) by giving fives and saying, “Yeah,

man, I’m on the rag!” TV shows would treat the subject at length. (“Happy Days”: Richie and Potsie try

to convince Fonzie that he is still “The Fonz,” though he has missed two periods in a row.) So would

newspapers. (SHARK SCARE THREATENS MENSTRUATING MEN. JUDGE CITES MONTHLY

STRESS IN PARDONING RAPIST.) And movies. (Newman and Redford in “Blood Brothers”!)

Men would convince women that intercourse was more pleasurable at “that time of the month.”

Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself—though probably only because they

needed a good menstruating man.

Of course, male intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguments. How could a woman

master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics, or measurement, for

instance, without that in-built gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets—and thus for

measuring anything at all? In the rarefied fields of philosophy and religion, could women compensate

for missing the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death-and-resurrection every

month?

Liberal males in every field would try to be kind: the fact that “these people” have no gift for measuring

life or connecting to the universe, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.

And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine traditional women agreeing to all

arguments with a staunch and smiling masochism. (“The ERA would force housewives to wound

themselves every month”: Phyllis Schlafly. “Your husband’s blood is as sacred as that of Jesus – and so

sexy, too!” Marabel Morgan.) Reformers and Queen Bees would try to imitate men, and pretend to have

a monthly cycle. All feminists would explain endlessly that men, too, needed to be liberated from the

false idea of Martian aggressiveness, just as women needed to escape the bonds of menses envy.

Radical feminists would add that the oppression of the nonmenstrual was the pattern for all other

oppressions (“Vampires were our first freedom fighters!”) Cultural feminists would develop a bloodless

imagery in art and literature. Socialist feminists would insist that only under capitalism would men be

able to monopolize menstrual blood . . . .

In fact, if men could menstruate, the power justifications could probably go on forever.

If we let the