Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Re Presenting Feminisms
Re Presenting Feminisms
Catherine Harnois
NWSA Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2008, pp. 120-145 (Article)
Introduction1
Background
By most accounts, the term third wave feminism (as understood today)
was coined by Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker, cofounder of
the Third Wave Foundation and editor of the third wave anthology, To be
Real.2 In practice, “third wave feminism/t” is used in at least three ways:
to refer to an age group, a cohort, and a theoretical perspective.3 In the
case of the first, the term is used as a synonym for “young feminists.” The
Third Wave Foundation, for example, describes itself as an organization
working to support women aged 15 to 30; and Sexing the Political, “an
online journal of third wave feminists on sexuality” requires its contribu-
tors to be “20- or 30-something feminists” (with the exception of those
contributing to the “Baby Boomer column”). In the case of the second, the
term is generally used to describe a generational cohort of self-identified
feminists who were brought up in the 1970s (and some would include
those reared in the 1980s), and who, consequently, developed political con-
sciousness during or subsequent to the antifeminist backlash of the 1980s
(Baumgardner and Richards 2000; Heywood and Drake 1997; Rasmusson
2003). Rather than relying on a birth-year-based cohort, Aikau, Erikson,
and Pierce (2005) suggest that feminist generations might be better under-
stood in terms of graduate-school cohorts. “[T]hose who entered graduate
school in the late 1960’s and 1970’s,” they suggest, represent the “second
generation;” those who entered in the 1980s are said to represent the
“2.5 generation;” and those who began in the 1990s represent the “third
generation.”4
Those who define third wave feminism in terms of a theoretical per-
spective routinely point to the crucial influence of postmodernism and
multiracial feminist theory on the development of third wave feminism
(Heywood and Drake 1997; Mann and Huffman 2005). In addition, third
wave feminists frequently define the “third wave” by contrasting it to
“second wave” feminism—the feminism associated with those women
who were active in the American Women’s Movement of the 1960s
and 1970s (Labaton and Martin 2004, xxv). Rasmusson (2004, 429), for
example, defines third wave feminism by distinguishing it from second
wave feminism, arguing that “a central tenet of third wave feminism is
122 Catherine Harnois
to include women who have previously been excluded from social move-
ments [read second wave feminism] due to race, class, and sexual orien-
tation prejudice.” This distinction between a perceived whitewashed,
privileged second wave feminism and a more diverse, multicultural,
postmodern third wave feminism is among the most popular themes of
third wave feminist literature.
Despite the popularity of third wave feminism and the “third wave”
label, the wave metaphor more generally has come under increasing criti-
cism by feminists who feel that it inaccurately represents the history and
present of the American women’s movement. Three criticisms stand out.5
First, as Springer (2002) and Morgan (2003) have argued, by focusing our
attention on large-scale public activism, the wave metaphor contributes
to the erasure of the rich history of American women’s struggle for equal-
ity. Poor women and women of color, whose goals and strategies often
differ from those of middle- and upper-class white feminists, remain mar-
ginalized in wave rhetoric, where attention is focused on white women’s
suffrage in the late nineteenth century and white women’s right to equal
opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s. As Springer (2002) says, “the more
we learn about women of color’s feminist activism, the less tenable the
wave analogy becomes” and that “the idea of a first wave beginning with
suffrage excludes the fact that Black women resisted gendered oppression
during the ante-bellum period” (1062). Bailey (1997), Orr (1997), and Henry
(2003) further argue that, by continually drawing what are thought to be
very clear distinctions between second wave feminism and third wave
feminism, continuity between the three waves of American feminism is
forgotten and the diversity of feminist ideology and activism within these
categories is lost, as popular images of 1970s bra-burning feminists come
to represent what would be better understood as a movement with a range
of ideologies, strategies, and participants.
A third problem with the wave metaphor, or perhaps more accurately,
with the way it is used, is that wave rhetoric does not sufficiently allow for
the growth, development, and revisions of feminist theories and theorists.
In third wave rhetoric, second wave feminism is typically depicted as some-
thing static, as if the multiracial feminist critique of white bourgeois femi-
nism, the rise of postmodernism, the development of new technologies,
a changing global political environment, and the institutionalization of
Women’s Studies left the second wave completely unaffected. In comparing
third wave feminism to second wave feminism, third wave feminists gener-
ally draw on those second wave works published in the 1960s and 1970s,
giving insufficient attention to the arguably better developed and more
inclusive second wave feminism of the 1990s and twenty-first century.
The third wave metaphor then, is a site of both ambiguity and contro-
versy. While some might argue that the lack of a clear definition of third
wave feminism fits comfortably with a postmodern third wave feminism,
Re-presenting Feminisms 123
Age/Cohort-Based Differences
Young women of color in pursuit of gender equality have also taken issue
with the continued presence of racial, class, and ethnic bias in third wave
feminism (see, for example, Hernández and Rehman 2002). While some
third wave texts successfully reflect the differences of race, ethnicity, and
class among women (e.g., Walker’s To Be Real 1995 and Hernández and
Rehman’s Colonize This! 2002), others (e.g., Baumgardner and Richards’
Manifesta! 2000) read as if the racial and class biases that once plagued
many feminist theories and practices are no longer of concern.
The question remains, then, how does the younger generation of femi-
nists compare to older generations of feminists in terms of racial, ethnic,
and class diversity? To answer this question I draw on data from the 1999
Gallup poll, “Century of the Woman,” which is a modified probability
sample of English-speaking women living in the United States who are
eighteen years of age and older.8 In addition to a number of ideological and
sociodemographic questions, respondents were asked whether they con-
sider themselves to be feminist or not. Responses were coded into three
categories: “yes,” “no,” and “sometimes/depends.” For purposes of this
paper, I combined the “sometimes/depends” with the “yes” responses. Of
the 923 women surveyed, only 43 (4.7%) answered “sometimes/depends”;
my decision to combine these two groups operates under the assumption
that women who “sometimes” considers themselves to be feminists prob-
ably have more in common in terms of identity and ideologically with
those who generally consider themselves to be feminists than those who
under no circumstances consider themselves to be feminists.
Table 1 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of three
generations of feminists. Odds ratio values lower than one indicate that
generation in question (Baby-Bust in the left column or Pre-Baby-Boom in
the right column) have, on average, significantly lower values on the socio-
demographic characteristic in question. The comparison of averages indi-
cates that self-identified feminists of the Baby-Bust generation were sig-
nificantly less likely than their counterparts in the Baby-Boom generation
to identify themselves as white, were more likely to identify themselves
as Black or Hispanic, were on average less well educated, and on average
reported lower household income levels than their older counterparts.
Fewer differences are seen between the Baby-Boom and Pre-Baby-Boom
generation, although women in the Pre-Baby-Boom generation reported
lower household income, and were less likely to work full-time.
While a significant portion of these educational and income differences
is most likely explained by differences in age, these differences have
important implications for the claims about ideological similarities and
Re-presenting Feminisms 127
Table 1.
Bivariate Relationship between Sociodemographic
Characteristics and Feminist Generations: 1999 Gallup Poll
“Century of the Woman” (N=316)
Means Odds Ratios1:
(Comparison to
Baby-Boom)
Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pre-Baby- Pre-Baby-
Baby-Bust
(N=101) (N=93) Boom (N=98) Boom
White 0.583 0.878 0.864 0.195*** 0.884
(0.495) (.329) (0.345) (0.071) (0.367)
Hispanic 0.111 0.041 0.009 2.938+ 0.216
(0.316) (0.199) (.0953) (1.749) (0.243)
Black 0.148 0.061 0.045 2.667* 0.730
(0.357) (0.241) (0.209) (1.336) (0.454)
H.S. Education 0.343 0.184 0.245 2.316* 1.446
(0.477) (0.389) (0.432) (0.765) (0.495)
College
0.241 0.449 0.245 0.389** 0.399**
graduate
(0.430) (0.500) (0.432) (0.118) (0.120)
Income1 4.300 5.484 4.640 0.258*** 0.383***
(1.614) (1.672) (1.848) (0.262) (0.273)
Not Currently
0.241 0.214 0.100 1.163 0.407*
Working
(0.430) (0.412) (0.301) (0.388) (0.164)
Working full
0.565 0.480 0.100 1.408 0.201***
time
(0.498) (0.502) (0.301) (0.395) (0.045)
Working part
0.157 0.184 0.082 0.830 0.396*
time
(0.366) (0.389) (0.275) (0.308) (0.172)
Child 0.361 0.898 0.927 0.064*** 1.449
(0.483) (0.304) (0.261) (0.025) (0.719)
Single 0.639 0.122 0.027 12.679*** 0.201*
(0.483) (0.329) (0.164) (4.660) (0.133)
Divorced/
0.019 0.133 0.127 0.123* 0.954
Separated
(0.135) (0.341) (0.335) (0.095) (0.394)
Note: Standard deviations of means and standard errors of odds ratio appear in parentheses.
* significant at 5%;** significant at 1%; *** significant at 0.1% (two-tailed tests)
+
significant at 5% (one-tailed test)
1
Income is measured as a seven category variable; the coefficients presented for this
variable are obtained by exponentiating the ordered logit coefficient.
128 Catherine Harnois
Table 2.
Relationship between Historical Feminism and Feminist Generations:
1999 Gallup Poll “Century of the Woman” (N=316)
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison to
Baby-Boom
Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pre-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-
(N=101) (N=93) Boom (N=98) Bust Boom
How important has
the women’s move- 1.889 2.020 2.045 0.832 1.164
ment been in the
past century? (0.824) (0.995) (0.882) (0.257) (0.258)
Compared with men, how much progress have women made in the past 50
years:
At home 3.822 3.526 3.495 1.621 0.950
(0.998) (1.128) (1.067) (0.257) (0.255)
At work 3.741 3.443 3.364 1.813* 0.849
(0.951) (0.866) (1.047) (0.253) (0.257)
In School 4.065 3.840 3.741 1.576 0.820
(0.889) (.954) (0.980) (0.259) (0.259)
In Government & 3.368 3.112 3.411 1.711 1.840
Politics (0.876) (0.823) (1.037) (0.252) (0.261)
In athletics 3.935 3.621 3.726 1.846* 1.160
(0.930) (1.012) (0.900) (0.260) (0.258)
The extent to which
1.710 1.783 1.648 0.833 0.704
women are seen as
sex objects (0 .813) (0.807) (0.813) (0.262) (0.265)
Note: Standard deviations of means and standard errors of odds ratio appear in parentheses.
* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%; *** significant at 0.1% (two-tailed tests)
women’s evaluation of the success of the women’s movement over the past
century. Women were asked to evaluate the following: “How important do
you think the women’s movement has been in helping women to obtain
greater equality with men?”, “Compared with men, how much progress
have women made over the past fifty years at home, at work, in school,
in government and politics, and in athletics?”, and “Compared to the way
women were viewed fifty years ago, do you think the view of women today
as sex objects has increased, stayed the same, or decreased?”
What is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this table is the extent
to which feminists of all generations share beliefs concerning the past suc-
cesses and current state of the women’s movement in the United States.
130 Catherine Harnois
Table 3.
Relationship between the Present and Future of Feminism and Feminist
Generations: 1999 Gallup Poll “Century of the Woman” (N=316)
Odds Ratio:
Means Comparison
to Baby-Boom
Baby-Bust Baby-Boom Pre-Baby- Baby- Pre-Baby-
(N=101) (N=93) Boom (N=98) Bust Boom
Who does society
treat better, women 2.660 2.765 2.755 0.676 1.014
or men?
(0.567) (0.500) (0.492) (0.321) (0.333)
How much change is needed before women and men are equal with regard to:
Legal protections 1.916 1.588 1.769 2.006** 1.462
(0.870) (0.641) (0.791) (0.267) (0.266)
Education 2.287 2.173 2.073 1.281 0.776
(0.897) (0.800) (0.906) (0.256) (0.258)
Responsibilities
running the 2.157 1.724 1.963 2.250** 1.613
household
(1.034) (0.809) (0.910) (0.264) (0.259)
Responsibilities for
1.972 1.711 1.807 1.639 1.301
child-rearing
(1.000) (0.841) (0.822) (0.266) (0.260)
Society’s attitudes
1.787 1.663 1.778 1.313 1.368
about women
(0.798) (0.703) (0.715) (0.268) (0.264)
Men’s attitudes
1.463 1.571 1.752 0.649 1.486
about women
(0.729) (0.689) (0.818) (0.278) (0.266)
Women’s attitudes
2.102 2.103 2.048 0.906 0.825
about women
(0.927) (0.729) (0.764) (0.267) (0.260)
How long until
women are treated 2.613 2.608 2.325 0.949 0.679
as well as men?
(1.488) (1.383) (1.326) (0.295) (0.286)
For many feminists, at the heart of the debate between second and third
wave feminisms lie issues of perfection, plurality, and power. By perfec-
tion I mean what constitutes legitimate feminist theories and practices;
by plurality I mean to suggest complex identities, systems of oppression,
and feminisms; and by power I mean to suggest how systems of dominance
are created, maintained, and disrupted, and which actors and institutions
are involved in these processes. However accurate or inaccurate they
may be, many third wave feminists understand second wave feminism
as something that has assumed its entitlement to defining feminism and
to demanding that anyone choosing to call her/himself feminist live in
accordance with that particular ideology. In response, third wave feminists
have emphasized the “messiness” of their own lives in terms of identities,
beliefs, and actions, and have repeatedly called for feminisms that address
the complexity of real lives. Central to this call is the demand for recogni-
tion of the ever-changing and always multiple routes to gender equality
and the realization that a completely pure feminism, untarnished by any
hint of oppression, does not exist. In the following section, I provide a
more substantive discussion of these issues and what they reveal about
the feminist production of intergenerational difference. I use the issue of
erotic power to illustrate how these issues play out in practice.
Power
Leaving aside the implication that second wave feminists lacked talent,
drive, ambition, and confidence, here Morgan, like many other third wave
feminists, takes the position that contemporary women are better able to
use their erotic power (also called “pretty power” and “pussy power”) to
advance their own position in society in large part because of the successes
of previous generations of feminists.
A second defense of women’s use of erotic power (also voiced by Joan
Morgan) argues that because women lack power, they should be entitled
to use what power they do have without ridicule from women (particularly
feminist women, who supposedly acknowledge women’s lack of power
and resources). As Veronica Webb (1995) relates, “if you are a woman, any
way that you can amass power and money you have to do it as long as it’s
ethical, because it’s just something that we don’t have . . . [P]eople say [‘]
well, women trading off their looks strips them of their power,[’] but it has
empowered a lot of women” (215). In her essays, “Femme-Inism: Lessons
of my Mother” and “I learned from the Best,” for example, Paula Austin
(a self-described black femme) describes how her mother, a “high-femme
whore” with very limited resources, was able to “feel accomplished,
adequate, of use to her family, sending her sister, Lucille, to school and
feeding Lucille’s children as well as her own” through strategic use her
sexuality (2002b, 158). She then describes how she and her butch white
lover strategically used their own sexuality when they found themselves
stranded in rural North Carolina. Scared to be an interracial lesbian couple
in a region with a reputation for intolerance, Austin consciously “play-
acts” her femininity for the car-shop audience and, in so doing, finds “a
Re-presenting Feminisms 137
Re-Presenting Feminisms
While it is true that many third wave texts approach the issue of erotic
power from a position that is different from many “second wave” femi-
nists, the claim that the third wave can be distinguished from other
feminisms on the basis of its theoretical uniqueness is problematic for at
least three reasons. First, to the extent that third wave feminists call for
a feminism that emphasizes “messiness” and “multiplicity,” third wave
feminists are, in effect, privileging a particular feminist perspective over
other feminist perspectives. Second, and more importantly, third wave
feminists were clearly not the first to have objected to a singular notion
of feminism, nor are they the first to make multiplicity central to their
critique (see, for example, Collins 1990; Lorde 1984; Moraga and Anzaldúa
1981). Multiracial feminist histories reveal that calls for multiplicity were
expressed well before the late 1970s and early 1980s, but only in the late
1970s were white women “forced kicking and screaming” to notice the
negative consequences of feminism’s fictionally unified subject “woman”
(Haraway 1991, 157). Only when the women’s movement had achieved
public recognition, when Women’s Studies had been institutionalized in
university, government, and community settings, and when people of
color had been recognized by the dominant white society as important
political actors, were women of color feminists widely recognized by
established (i.e., upper-middle-class white) feminists as having legiti-
mate, although different, feminist perspectives. The rhetoric that bases
138 Catherine Harnois
The call for papers then goes on to suggest possible topics and even pos-
sible titles for submitted pieces, including “How Come Feminists Give
Sex Work a Dirty Name?” and “FUCK! Manifesto: Radical Feminists for
a Future Under the Control of Kindness.”
Re-presenting Feminisms 139
Notes
1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of
the American Sociological Association in August 2005 in Philadelphia,
Re-presenting Feminisms 141
Pennsylvania. The author would like to thank Andrew Perrin, Judith Blau,
Barbara Risman, Karolyn Tyson, Susan Bickford, Tanya Golash-Boza, and Joe
Harrington for their helpful comments regarding the manuscript.
2. Catherine Orr (1997) has argued that the term “Third Wave” was used by a
multicultural group of women who collectively created an anthology, The
Third Wave: Feminist Perspectives on Racism in the mid-1980s.
7. In this study, the average age of feminists in the Baby-Bust generation is 23.4,
those in the Baby-Boom generation average 41.7 years of age, and the mean
age for the Pre-Baby-Boom generation is 68.5 years.
8. The random sample was stratified with respect to age so that there were
at least 300 women in each of the following age categories: 18–29, 30–53,
and >54.
142 Catherine Harnois
11. This perceived demand for perfection is further complicated by the catch-22
that many young feminists find themselves presented with: on the one hand,
young feminist activists feel they are being pressured to follow in the footsteps
of older feminist generations, using similar strategies (perhaps because these
are the ones that the media is likely to recognize) to achieve similar goals;
on the other hand, young feminists often find there is a shortage of space to
thrive in these positions, as older feminists occupy most of the top positions.
Two quotations capture this dynamic well: Third Wave feminist Madelyn
Detloff (1997, 78) writes, “I sense a reluctance on the part of second wavers
to pass the torch to the next generation of leaders;” and Second Wave feminist
Robin Morgan (2003, 578) retaliates, “Speaking for myself, I’m hanging on to
my torch, thank you. Get your own damned torch,” to which Pollitt (2003,
311) agrees.
13. Note that this use of “erotic power” is qualitatively different from Lorde’s
(1984) use of “erotic power.”
14. For similar sentiments, see also Findlen (1995) and Baumgardner and Richards
(2000).
15. It is important to mention that many third wave feminists note that there are
situations in which women believe themselves to be in control of the ‘tools
of patriarchy’ while they are “in fact” not in control. In other words, women’s
and girls’ beliefs that they are in control is not the most important criteria
for determining whether they are being exploited (Baumgardner and Richards
2000; Byrd 2004; Frank 2002).
Re-presenting Feminisms 143
16. While all anthologies are strategically produced, there are a variety of strate-
gies that editors use to produce anthologies. If we compare these editorial
strategies to that of Obioma Nnaemeka’s in Sisterhood, Feminisms, and
Power: From Africa to the Diaspora, the differences become clear immedi-
ately. While Walker and Berila seek to produce a coherent body of Third Wave
feminist writing, Nnaemeka uses her introduction to emphasize the diversity
of feminist perspectives within Africa and the African diaspora. She highlights
where contributors agree and disagree and she explicitly resists the temptation
to define African feminism in opposition to Western/white feminism. Hers is
an anthology that seems to emerge from the bottom-up, where Walker’s and
Berila’s appear to emerge more from the top-down.
References
Aikau, Hokulani, Karla Erickson, and Jennifer L. Pierce, eds. 2005. “Making Trou-
ble for the Binary Between Second and Third Wave Feminism: Reconceptual-
izing ‘Waves’ and ‘Generations’ in Feminist Theory.” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Austin, Paula. 2002a. “I learned from the Best.” Jane Sexes it Up: True Confes-
sions of Feminist Desires, ed. Merri Lisa Johnson, 91–106. New York: Four
Walls Eight Windows.
———. 2002b. “Femme-Inism: Lessons of My Mother” Colonize This!: Young
Women of Color on Today’s Feminism, eds. Daisy Hernández and Bushra
Rehman, 159–167. New York: Seal Press.
Bailey, Cathryn. 1997. “Making Waves and Drawing Lines: The Politics of Defining
Vicissitudes of Feminism” Hypatia 12(3): 17–28.
Baumgardner, Jennifer and Amy Richards. 2000. Manifesta: Young Women,
Feminism, and the Future. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Butler, Judith. 1994. “Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of
‘Postmodernism.’ ” Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange, eds. S.
Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, and N. Fraser. New York: Routledge.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge Consciousness,
and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Cortese, Janis. 1997. “The Third WWWave: Who we are, what we see.” Retrieved 25
Jan. 2008, from: http://www.3rdwwwave.com/addresses/janisaddress.html
Cox, Ana Marie, Freya Johnson, Annalee Newitz and Jillian Sandell. 1997. “Mascu-
linity without Men: Women Reconciling Feminism and Male-Identification.”
Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism, eds. Leslie Heywood
and Jennifer Drake, 178–206. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Davis, Angela Y. 1995. “Afterward.” To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Chang-
ing the Face of Feminism, ed. Rebecca Walker, 279–84. New York: Anchor
Books.
Dent, Gina. 1995. “Missionary Position.” To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Chang-
ing the Face of Feminism, ed. Rebecca Walker, 61–75. New York: Anchor
Books.
144 Catherine Harnois
Detloff, Madelyn. 1997. “Mean Spirits: The Politics of Contempt between Femi-
nist Generations” in Hypatia 12(3): 76–99.
Dicker, Rory and Alison Piepmeier. 2003. Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism
for the 21st Century. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Drake, Jennifer. 1997. “Third Wave Feminisms.” Feminist Studies 23(1): 97–108.
Evans, Sarah M. 2003. Tidal Wave: How Women Changed America at Century’s
End. New York: Free Press.
Findlen, Barbara, ed. 1995. Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation.
Seattle: Seal Press.
Freeman, Jo. 1996. “Waves of Feminism.” Retrieved 2005, from: http://www.
jofreeman.com/feminism/waves.htm.
Gallup Organization, ICR Survey Research Group, 1999, “Gallup/USA Today Poll
#9902007: Century of the Woman,” hdl:1902.29/D-31402 http://id.thedata.org/
hdl%3A1902.29%2FD-31402 Odum Institute [distributor(DDI)].
Garrison, Ednie Kaeh. 2000. “U.S. Feminism–Grrrl Style! Youth (Sub)Cultures and
the Technologics of the Third Wave.” Feminist Studies 26(1): 141–170.
Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. 2002. “Response from a ‘Second Waver” to Kimberly
Springer’s ‘Third Wave Black Feminism?’ ” Signs 27(4): 1091–1094.
Haraway, Donna. 1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-
Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” Simians, Cyborgs, and Women:
The Reinvention of Nature, 149–181. New York: Routledge.
Harnois, Catherine E. 2005a. “Re-Presenting Feminisms: Past, Present, and
Future.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Harnois, Catherine E. 2005b. “Different Paths to Different Feminisms? Bridg-
ing Multiracial Feminist Theories with Quantitative Sociological Gender
Research.” Gender and Society 19(6): 809–828.
Henry, Astrid. 2003. “Feminism’s Family Problem: Feminist Generations and the
Mother-Daughter Trope.” Catching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st
Century, ed. Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier.
Hernández , Daisy and Bushra Rehman, eds. 2002. Colonize This!: Young Women
of Color on Today’s Feminism. New York: Seal Press.
herrup, mocha jean. 1995. “Virtual Identity.” To Be Real: Telling the Truth and
Changing the Face of Feminism, ed. Rebecca Walker, 239–252.
Heywood, Leslie and Jennifer Drake, eds. 1997. Third Wave Agenda: Being
Feminist, Doing Feminism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hirsch, Marianne and Evelyn Fox Keller, eds. 1990. Conflicts in Feminism. New
York: Routledge.
Huddy, Leonie, Francis K. Neely and Marilyn R. LaFay. 2000. “The Polls—
Trends Support for the Women’s Movement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64:
309–350.
Johnson, Merri Lisa, ed. 2002. Jane Sexes it Up: True Confessions Feminism
Desire. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Karlyn, Kathleen Rowe. 2003. “Scream, Popular Culture, and Feminism’s Third
Wave: ‘I’m Not My Mother.’ ” Genders. Retrieved 2005, from: http://www.
genders.org/g38/g38_rowe_karlyn.html.
Kinser, Amber E. 2004. “Negotiating Spaces for/through Third Wave Feminism.”
NWSA Journal 16(3): 124–153.
Labaton, Vivien and Dawn Lundy Martin, eds. 2004. The Fire this Time. New
York: Anchor Books.
Re-presenting Feminisms 145
Lear, Marsha. 1968. “The Second Feminist Wave” New York Times Magazine,
March 10: 24–25, 50–62.
Lorber, Judith. 1993. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Trumansberg, NY: The
Crossing Press.
Mann, S. A. and D. J. Huffman. 2005. “The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism
and the Rise of the Third Wave.” Science and Society 69(1): 56–91.
Moraga, Cherríe and Gloria Anzaldúa, eds. 1981. This Bridge Called My Back:
Writings by Radical Women of Color. Watertown, MA: Persephone Press.
Morgan, Joan. 1999. When Chicken Heads Come Home to Roost: My Life as a
Hip-Hop Feminist. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Morgan, Robin, ed. 2003. Sisterhood Is Forever: The Women’s Anthology for a New
Millenium. New York: Washington Square Press.
Nnaemeka, Obioma. 1998. “Introduction: Reading the Rainbow.” Sisterhood,
Feminisms, and Power: From Africa to the Diaspora, ed. Obioma Nnaemeka,
1–35. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Orr, Catherine M. 1997. “Charting the Currents of the Third Wave.” Hypatia
12(3): 29–45.
Payette, Patricia. 2002. “The Feminist Wife?: Notes from a Political Engagement.”
Jane Sexes it Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire, ed. Merri Lisa Johnson,
139–170. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Peltola, Pia, Melissa Milkie and Stanley Presser. 2004 “The ‘Feminist’ Mystique.”
Gender and Society 18:122–44.
Pollitt, Katha and Jennifer Baumgardner. 2003. “Afterword: A correspondence
between Katha Pollitt and Jennifer Baumgardner.” Catching a Wave: Reclaim-
ing Feminism for the 21st Century, eds. Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier,
309–320. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Rasmusson, Sarah L. 2004. “Third Wave Feminism: History of a Social Move-
ment.” Encyclopedia of American Social Movements, ed. Immanuel Ness,
429–435. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Schnittker, Jason, Jeremy Freese and Brian Powell. 2003. “Who Are Feminists and
What Do They Believe?” American Sociological Review 68(4): 607–622.
Schriefer, Amy. “We’ve Only Just Begun: Translating Third Wave Theory Into
Third Wave Activism.” The Laughing Medusa. Retrieved 2004, from: www.
gwu.edu/~medusa/thirdwave.html.
Siegel, Deborah L. 1997a. “The Legacy of the Personal: Generating Theory in
Feminism’s Third Wave.” Hypatia 12(3):46–75.
———. 1997b. “Reading between the Waves: Feminist Historiography in a ‘Post-
feminist’ Moment.” Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism,
eds. Leslie Haywood and Jennifer Drake, 55–82. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Springer, Kimberly. 2002. “Third Wave Black Feminism?” Signs 27(4): 1059–1082.
Tong, Rosemarie Putnam. 1998. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive
Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Walker, Rebecca. 1995. To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of
Feminism. New York: Anchor Books.
Webb, Veronica and Rebecca Walker. 1995. “How does a Supermodel do Femi-
nism” To Be Real, ed. Rebecca Walker, 209–218. New York: Anchor Books.
Whittier, Nancy. 1995. Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical
Women’s Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.