Political Science Faculty Publications Political Science

2010

Women's Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism

Kathleen P. Iannello
Gettysburg College

Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/poliscifac

Part of the History of Gender Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Political Science
Commons, Women's History Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons
Share feedback about the accessibility of this item.

Iannello, Kathleen. "Women's Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism." Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook. Ed.
Karen O'Connor (Sage Publishing, 2010), 70-77.

This is the publisher's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of
the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/poliscifac/8
This open access book chapter is brought to you by The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion
by an authorized administrator of The Cupola. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Women's Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism
Abstract
Leadership is a term that women strive to claim as their own. Whether in the halls of Congress, the corporate
boardroom, or the privacy of the home, women’s leadership challenges traditional notions of the concept.
Throughout the ages images of leadership feature men in uniform and men in positions of power, whether it
be military, government, or market. The traditional view of leaders is imbued with male images of “heroes,”
who issue orders, lead the troops—save the day. But leadership has another face. It is the face of Abigail
Adams admonishing her husband to “Remember the Ladies” in the formation of this new American nation
(McGlen, O’Connor, van Assendelft, & Gunther-Canada, 2002, p. 1). It is the face of Susan B. Anthony in
1872 standing trial for illegally voting. It is the face of scores of women in today’s world who have shattered
glass ceilings in corporate America and hold important legislative and administrative posts in state and federal
government. Yet there is more to the concept of “women’s leadership” than substituting one face for another.
[excerpt]

Keywords
women's leadership, Abigail Adams, Susan B. Anthony, gender bias, gender equality, third-wave feminism

Disciplines
Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies | History of Gender | Law and Gender | Political Science | Women's
History | Women's Studies

This book chapter is available at The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/poliscifac/8
8
WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP
AND THIRD-WAVE FEMINISM

KATHLEEN IANNELLO
Gettysburg College

L
eadership is a term that women strive to claim as (Dicker & Piepmeier, 2003, p. 163). Women are less
their own. Whether in the halls of Congress, the inclined to need an official title or location on the organi-
corporate boardroom, or the privacy of the home, zation chart to initiate change. Women are more inclined to
women’s leadership challenges traditional notions of the challenge hierarchy, or classic, top-down organization
concept. Throughout the ages images of leadership feature structure (Iannello, 1992).
men in uniform and men in positions of power, whether it be Women’s collaborative nature has long been a factor in
military, government, or market. The traditional view of gaining equal rights for women in the United States. As far
leaders is imbued with male images of “heroes,” who issue back as the Revolutionary War, women collaborated in
orders, lead the troops—save the day. But leadership has organizing boycotts of tea and other British goods
another face. It is the face of Abigail Adams admonishing (Elshtain & Tobias, 1990, pp. 94–95). This early collabo-
her husband to “Remember the Ladies” in the formation of ration gave women their first opportunity to make claims
this new American nation (McGlen, O’Connor, van for citizenship—the early seeds of first-wave feminism
Assendelft, & Gunther-Canada, 2002, p. 1). It is the face of and the fight for the right to vote (Klosko & Klosko,
Susan B. Anthony in 1872 standing trial for illegally voting. 1999). The Women’s Strike for Peace (WSP) in the early
It is the face of scores of women in today’s world who have 1960s, the beginning of a second wave of feminism, was an
shattered glass ceilings in corporate America and hold example of women’s collaboration in forming a sponta-
important legislative and administrative posts in state and neous “un-organization,” as they liked to say, focused on
federal government. Yet there is more to the concept of reducing the threat of nuclear war. WSP also unintention-
“women’s leadership” than substituting one face for another. ally used the strength of “female culture” to disarm the
Leadership can be viewed as a gendered concept. That infamous House Un-American Activities Committee
is to say that there is something about being female or (HUAC) and the communist witch hunt conducted by
socialized to “female values” that can be identified in Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI; Swerdlow, 1990).
women’s organizational behavior. Research in political sci- Numerous examples of women’s collaborative leadership
ence, psychology, sociology, and Women’s Studies sup- exist throughout the second wave of American feminism.
ports this claim (Swers, 2002). Studies show that women, By contrast, a “third wave” of feminism, emerging in
more so than men, as leaders, encourage nonconfronta- the 1990s and extending to the present day, is raising new
tional styles of decision making. Women, more than men, questions about women’s leadership in the 21st century.
utilize network building to work toward consensus in sup- While collaborative leadership is still valued, third-wave
port of new organization initiatives, new legislation, pol- feminists see new possibilities for individual initiative,
icy, or laws, as the case may be. In addition, women are rejecting group identity, in some cases rejecting the label
more inclined to lead from “where they are,” to “create “feminist,” as they seek power in their professional and
change in their own lives and in their own communities” personal lives as well. To understand this contrast in the

70

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 8. Women’s Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism–•–71

form and function of women’s leadership, it is important to as claims of “post-feminism” and Time Magazine’s 1998
gain a broader understanding of feminism in waves. Of cover story asking the question, “Is Feminism Dead?” Out
particular interest is the way in which collaborative leader- of sexism in the Hill/Thomas hearings and reaction to 12
ship emerged in the second wave of feminism that pro- years of Reagan-Bush conservative policies, the Third Wave
duced consensual and modified consensual organization Foundation was formed, aimed at recruiting and supporting
structure. These organizations contributed in many ways to feminists between the ages of 15 and 30. Additionally a new
cultural and political changes advancing the collective culture of music and journalism appeared with the creation
rights of women in the United States. The question is, in of punk groups such as Riot Grrrls and “zines” (magazines)
the third wave, how has this paradigm shifted? such as Bust, Bitch, and others (Dicker & Piepmeier, 2003).
Third-wave feminism’s roots are clearly embedded in
popular culture. Even though in Manifesta, Jennifer
Feminism in Waves Baumgardner and Amy Richards (2000) outline a 13-point
agenda for action that includes safeguarding women’s repro-
The metaphor of “waves” is often used to describe and ductive rights, increasing the power and visibility of lesbian
explain the history of feminism in the United States and bisexual women, and guaranteeing equal access to
(Evans, 2003). The first wave of feminism in the United health care, generally, third-wave feminism is not thought of
States is usually marked by the women’s rights convention as an activist movement. This is because there doesn’t seem
held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York. This included the to be a collective identity. In fact, third-wave feminists reject
writing of The Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth the notion of collective identity and refuse to be categorized
Cady Stanton, as well as others, whose goal was because they embrace disunity (Gilmore, 2001, p. 218).
establishing legal identity for women separate from their Much of social movement theory argues that collective
fathers and husbands. This wave crested with the identity is crucial to social movement formation and ulti-
ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, finally mately the ability to challenge existing structures of power.
winning the right to vote for women in the United States Feminist social movements in the past have been said to
(Klosko & Klosko, 1999, p. 11). engage in struggles on two levels: over meanings and over
The second wave of feminism began with the con- the distribution of resources for society. For example, in
sciousness-raising groups of the late 1950s and early 1960s. the first wave of feminism women’s nature had to be
Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) helped viewed in a new way before women were seen as worthy of
define “the problem with no name” that many middle-class a political resource: the right to vote. Thus cultural change
American housewives were experiencing. This problem led to political change. In the second wave of feminism a
went to the core of women’s self-worth and lack of identity collective consciousness enabled women to see themselves
in the public world of paid labor and their definition of self differently than just wives and mothers. This made it pos-
primarily as wife and mother in the private realm of family. sible for women to exercise leadership in challenging
The second wave of feminism sought equal rights for existing gender relations and eventually gain power in the
women in the public sphere “kicking open” the doors to public sphere. If this is the model for leadership and
many previously all-male professions (Evans, 2003). While change, the question is: What does feminism in the third
feminists in the 1970s and early 1980s achieved some rights wave contribute to a collective consciousness?
with regard to abortion and equal access to education and If third-wave feminism could be seen as having one ide-
jobs, they fell short of the chief legislative goal: an equal ological perspective, it would be born out of a tension with
rights amendment (ERA) to the Constitution. the second wave. As one author states, “We want to be
A third wave of feminism is thought to have begun in linked with our foremothers and centuries of women’s
the 1990s and continues to the present day. This wave has movements, but we also want to make a space for young
the potential to empower women by helping them shatter women to create their own, different brand of revolt, and so
the “glass ceiling” in politics, business, and other fields to we chose the name Third Wave” (Walker, 2004, p. xvii).
which women have limited access, whether it be the presi- Third-wave feminists criticize the second wave for its lack
dency of the United States or chief executive officer of of diversity, as the second wave is commonly known for
major corporations. From first to third wave, women have being led mostly by white affluent women. Third-wave
made—and continue to make—legal, economic, and polit- feminism is multicultural in nature and sexually diverse as
ical progress. well, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual per-
spectives. Third-wave feminism recognizes the “interlock-
ing nature of identity—that gender, race, ethnicity,
Feminism in the Third Wave sexuality and class never function in isolation but always
work as interconnected categories of oppression and privi-
Third-wave feminism is thought to have begun in the early leged” (Henry, 2004, p. 32).
1990s as a partial reaction to issues raised in the One could look at a third-wave feminist reader like
Hill/Thomas Senate hearings on sexual harassment as well Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier’s book Catching a

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

72–•–II. HISTORY OF WOMEN’S PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Wave to get a sense of the wide range of topics included in Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, disbanded
the third-wave discussion. The chapters cover issues after women secured the right to vote in 1920. So much
related to the news and entertainment media’s treatment of energy had gone into the ratification of the Nineteenth
feminism, childhood development and feminism, concepts Amendment on August 26, 1920, that the women’s move-
of feminist leadership on college campuses today as well ment virtually collapsed from exhaustion. With the excep-
as broader leadership for the movement, and feminism tion of a few organizations such as the National Woman’s
applied to particular groups. The groups include American Party (NWP), founded by Alice Paul in 1916 (formerly the
Jewish women and the third wave, Arab American femi- Congressional Union for Women Suffrage), and the
nism, hip-hop feminism, and a discussion of transsexual National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s
feminism. Additionally, chapters explore subjects such as Clubs (BPW) and “good government” groups such as
pornography, highlighting differences in perspective the League of Women Voters, the women’s movement
between second- and third-wave feminists. became dormant until the 1960s (Klosko & Klosko, 1999,
Second-wave feminism revealed the oppression of pp. 277–278).
women in the entertainment media in terms of obsession The 1960s saw the birth of new women’s organizations
with the portrayal of women as sex objects. This is and marked the beginning of what we now term the second
described in the literature as “victim feminism” and obvi- wave of feminism. In 1961 President Kennedy created a
ously extended to opposition to pornography, which was national Commission on the Status of Women that led to
seen as promoting violence toward women. Some femi- the formation of a citizen’s advisory council and women’s
nists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, worked toward laws commissions in all 50 states. These commissions clearly
aimed at banning pornography (Evans, 2003). Third-wave documented the second-class status of women in the
feminists reject victim feminism and endorse “power femi- United States, yet the government did little to bring about
nism,” which is based on a sense of individualism. Thus, for change. This lack of action mobilized many who had been
example, not all third-wave feminists are against pornogra- involved with the commissions to join with Friedan in
phy as long as women involved in it claim empowerment founding the National Organization for Women (NOW) in
via economic (or other) resources. Some theorists observe 1966. Thus began one branch of the feminist movement,
that the third wave is “a movement that contains elements later to be joined by organizations such as the National
of second wave critique of beauty culture, sexual abuse, and Women’s Political Caucus and the Women’s Equity Action
power structures while it also acknowledges and makes use League, as well as the organizations such as the BPW that
of the pleasure, danger, and defining power of those struc- had existed since the 1920s. The structure of all these orga-
tures” (Heywood & Drake , 1997, pp. 2–3). nizations was top-down hierarchical, with elected officers,
boards of directors, by-laws, and other procedural rules.
Leadership was defined “traditionally,” that is, by position
Emerging Leadership (Evans, 2003, pp. 18–53).
As second-wave feminism moved forward, hierarchy
Leadership in the second wave of feminism, based largely itself became an issue. This, in turn, affected the second-
on consensual style, clearly emerged in the public sphere wave view of leadership. The primary goal of feminists in
of politics, achieving goals of new legislation that enabled the second wave was to reduce patriarchy, defined as male
women equal access to resources in many policy arenas, domination by birthright, wherever that was possible. They
including education, work, and some aspects of family life. believed that patriarchy was perpetuated through hierar-
Second-wave feminism was a movement, based on a chical organization; thus eliminating hierarchy was essen-
collective consciousness. Third-wave feminism appears in tial to eliminating patriarchy. In the literature of
a different form. Leadership in the third wave is organization theory, hierarchy is defined as “any system in
individually defined. The goals of leadership in the third which the distributions of power, privilege and authority
wave are not collective and are not focused as much on are both systematic and unequal” (Iannello, 1992, p. 15).
policy change at the national level. They may be locally In this context power is defined as domination. Privilege
focused, they may be an outcome of personal direction, or implies a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a person
they may be both. For the purposes of comparison, or restricted group of people. Authority is defined as
organization and leadership in the second and third waves “legitimate” power, in which those subject to domination
of feminism will be addressed next. by others willingly accept this arrangement (Iannello,
1992, p. 15).
Second-Wave Organization and Structure By the late 1960s the feminist movement had organized
small groups called “consciousness-raising” or “rap”
Concepts of leadership in the second wave of feminism groups. Much of this organization was in reaction to
are inextricably tied to feminist organization structure that Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique. There Friedan wrote of a
emerged in the 1960s, continuing into the 1970s and 1980s “problem with no name,” which characterized the plight of
in some cases. First-wave organizations such as the the 1950s suburban housewife who longed for a life-
National Woman Suffrage Association, formed by affirming value that only men had access to through their

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 8. Women’s Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism–•–73

professional careers. Woman joined small groups to dis- a circle, with critical decision making remaining on the
cuss Friedan’s book and identify larger issues of sex dis- outer circle representing the entire membership (Iannello,
crimination in U.S. society. The groups became committed 1992, p. 96).
to nonhierarchy and began experimenting with organiza- The contributions of consensual and modified consen-
tion structure. They were not interested in formal leader- sual organization in the second wave of feminism were
ship and organization as it had developed in the larger important in challenging conventional hierarchical organi-
groups of the movement. zation structure and the patriarchy perpetuated by those
Every organization faces the question of leadership. This structures. The existence of these organizations in the form
is particularly true with regard to the development of more of health clinics, peace groups, and Women’s Studies pro-
equalitarian structures. Organizations attempting to avoid grams on college campuses, to name a few, provided mod-
hierarchical structure face a dilemma. They may wish to els of leadership, organization, and communication that
allow leadership to develop naturally out of the skills and began to affect the larger bureaucratic structures of busi-
interests of its members, but there is risk that some members ness, education, and government. Although it was obvi-
may gain unaccountable power in the organization. Thus Jo ously not possible for these large bureaucratic structures to
Freeman (1974) coined the phrase, “the tyranny of struc- completely adopt consensual practices, some of the values
turelessness” (p. 202). This means that if there is no organi- supporting consensus were incorporated at various levels
zation process that places women in leadership positions, of these bureaucracies. And although second-wave femi-
there is also no process to remove them should they assume nist organizations were not the only organizations in the
a leadership position due to media attention or external cir- world to provide an alternative example to hierarchy, at the
cumstances. In response to the extremes of hierarchy and very least they sparked enough interest in alternative mod-
nonstructure (meaning no process at all), feminists in the els to give birth to new concepts of leadership and organi-
second wave began experimenting with consensual forms of zation in traditional settings (Senge, 1990).
organization. Consensual organizations are defined as
groups in which control or power rests primarily with mem- Third-Wave Initiatives
bers. They operate through consensual process, which
means that issues are discussed, then summarized, and if no Third-wave feminists seek the individual opportunity to
objections are voiced, they become policy. Voting does not explore, experiment, and focus on their own personal and
occur and is viewed as less efficient than consensus. Voting career development. Further, the concept of individual
generates winners and losers. Those who lose may reorga- leadership is quite opposite the notion of leadership
nize and present the same or similar issue again. The orga- through a collaborative process utilized in the consensual
nization remains divided (Freeman, 1974). organizations that served the second wave of feminism so
Consensual organization is structured; it is the out- well. Consensual organization, in rejecting individual lead-
growth of a participatory, egalitarian culture that is willing ership, required accommodation and sought individual
to invest quality time in the decision-making process. In power through “oneness” with the group. Feminist leader-
consensual organization, procedure is as important as out- ship in the third wave can be collaborative, or not, but is
come. When outcomes are achieved, it is because all mem- more frequently individually focused. Third-wave leader-
bers are invested in them and support them. Members of ship is mindful of hierarchical boundaries but not bound by
consensual organizations support the notion that efficiency hierarchical minds—nor is it restrained by consensual
is gained in the long run. Although voting provides short- process. Third-wave feminism presents the opportunity for
term efficiency, issues tend not to be resolved. As feminist leadership, the ability to reestablish “self ” as the subject
consensual organizations evolved, it became apparent that (Drake, 1997, p. 97). In this way third-wave feminist lead-
not all types of decisions faced by organizations warranted ership serves to challenge the established paradigm of con-
the attention of the entire membership. This thinking gave sensual structure in the second wave.
birth to a “modified” consensual structure. Distinctions are
made among types of policy decisions: critical and routine
(Iannello, 1992, p. 94). Goals of Third-Wave Leadership
Critical decisions are those that have the potential for
altering the path of the organization or defining its central In the public sphere third-wave feminists have the
mission. These decisions are made by the entire member- opportunity to shatter the glass ceiling. Due to the
ship. Routine decisions are those that sustain the organiza- successes of second-wave feminism, many more women
tion on more of a daily basis and are not likely to alter the have reached higher levels in corporations, law firms, and
path of the enterprise. Routine decision making in modi- government. Now that the link between hierarchy and
fied consensual structure is delegated outward, not down- patriarchy is not as strong as it once was, young women
ward, to coordinators who have expertise in a particular have a new platform from which to launch their own
area. These decisions sustain the organization but do not careers. One way to think of it is that they have a running
alter its path. A diagram of this organization would portray start in reaching the top and much more legitimacy in
routine decision making as lines of communication inside making the attempt. As Baumgardner and Richards (2000)

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

74–•–II. HISTORY OF WOMEN’S PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

state, these young women grew up with feminism “in the If each mother’s life was not working out as planned,
water” (p. 17). this circumstance was due to her individual “choices.” If
So far, one of the great contributions of third-wave fem- her children, house, and family life were not perfect, it was
inism is its challenge that each young woman define femi- her fault, because she was “responsible.” Further, these
nism to include herself (Drake, 1997). This challenge may women were utilizing their career skills in attempts to
hasten young women’s ability to discover their “centered “perfect” their home lives, bringing CEO-like skills to
self ” (Pipher, 1994, pp. 1–15). Thus the feminist struggle in sports schedules, music and dance lessons, birthday par-
the third wave becomes a personal one. In the private sphere ties, and other child-related activities. As Warner (2005)
of home and family, third-wave feminists have their work explains, “rather than becoming rebels or pioneers, we
cut out for them. Second-wave feminism brought attention became a generation of control freaks” (p. 47). Warner
to the significant differences in the way men and women refers to this as “the mess,” which in some ways is the
have been socialized to think and act with regard to home modern version of second-wave feminism’s “problem with
and family. Surprisingly even women who thought them- no name,” the phrase coined by Friedan in 1963.
selves more “liberated” came to realize that they too were As a starting point for addressing this “mess,” Warner
invested in the powerful social norms underlying the belief (2005) calls for a “politics of quality of life” (p. 268). By
that men should be the “breadwinners” (Potuchek, 1997). comparing her experiences of first becoming a mother in
France with those of mothers in the United States, Warner is
easily able to see the part that culture plays in defining the
Summary and Future Directions role of mothers and the locus of responsibility with regard to
family. In brief, according to Warner, French culture views
So what can be said about leadership in the third wave of mothers as citizens who deserve a full and rewarding “adult”
feminism? Broadly it may be defined as a break with the life of their own. There is a clearer separation of adult
paradigm of the second wave, retaining the ethos of “space” and child “space” as it applies to the structure of the
consensual process as one possibility for leadership while French home both physically (no child-centered “family
exploring a wider range of individual initiatives. The wider room”) and mentally (time for adult conversation).
range includes exercising leadership in the private sphere French culture views the raising of children as a com-
of the family, which some refer to as “the final frontier” of munity responsibility, and thus the French are willing to
women’s quest for equality. spend government money for quality day care and paid
parental leaves, as many other European countries do. As
Siim (2000) explains in her book, Gender and Citizenship,
Third-Wave Feminism and Motherhood
While much of the third-wave feminist focus is located French political and intellectual history transcends the liberal
language of abstract individualism by placing the individual
in the social culture of women between the ages of 15 and
as part of the national political community. And historians and
30, more attention needs to be given to a slightly older political scientists have recently suggested that there is a specific
group of women who came of age during the Reagan era French conception of citizenship . . . with implications for
and are now mired in the issues of motherhood. This women’s citizenship. (p. 46)
group, aged 30 to 50, is often ignored in the discussion of
third-wave feminism, especially in the generational As Siim (2000) further explains about the French
mother-daughter discourse between second- and third- example, “Parental policies were built on a double
wave feminists (Henry, 2004). assumption that women are both workers and mothers—and
Judith Warner’s (2005) book, Perfect Madness: that subsequently public policies ought to support women in
Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety, argues that women in their dual role” (p. 20). Warner calls for American policy
this age group were especially socialized to the notion of making that would begin to relieve the individual burden
individual responsibility that was characteristic of the that American mothers bear. She states that “one of the most
social and economic conservatism of the Reagan years. surprising things about our current culture of motherhood is
Believing that they had real “choices” regarding career and that while it inspires widespread complaint, it has not led to
family, many of these women pursued careers first and any kind of organized change” (p. 53).
then tried to accommodate those careers to family. Warner is far from alone in her analysis. Many other
This accommodation took many forms. Some women books and articles have been written that underscore her
worked in careers that offered flexible hours or allowed arguments. Taylor, Layne, and Wozniak (2004) have writ-
them to work at home. Others found themselves being ten a book titled Consuming Motherhood, which looks at
sidelined from career advancement by employers who the effects of motherhood under modern capitalism. Arlie
demanded more of them even though they had families. Hochschild’s (1997) book The Time Bind, which has the
And some women “chose” to quit their jobs in favor of subtitle When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes
staying at home with their children. In all of this very few Work, points to a work/family crisis. In The Impossibility
women were truly happy with their choice, and nearly all of Motherhood, Patrice DiQuinzio (1999) highlights the
of the women took full responsibility for this unhappiness. “paradoxical politics of mothering” (p. 28).

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 8. Women’s Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism–•–75

Ulla Björnberg and Anna-Karin Kollind (2005), in their marry someone much younger or much older) or find a
work, Individualism and Families, discuss “time politics,” spouse with an ideological commitment to gender equality
meaning shorter work hours and extended leaves, as a (much harder to do in reality). The goal is to avoid taking on
means for reaching gender equality by “dissolving the more than your fair share of the “second shift,” but this is
hierarchical dualism of work and private life” (p. 14). difficult to accomplish. Hirshman (2005) cites a survey by
These books are just a sampling of the literature that now the Center for Work-Life Policy indicating that 40% of
exists, articulating the very real hardships facing mothers highly qualified women with spouses felt that their hus-
in U.S. society. Most of these books conclude with a call bands create more work around the house than they perform
for government intervention and assistance, yet, to date, in (p. 8). Further, according to another team of researchers,
the United States, their analyses have fallen on deaf ears or “when couples marry, the amount of time that a woman
have been ignored entirely by legislators. Thus the “dual- spends doing housework increases by approximately 17 per-
ism” of work and private life in the United States remains cent, while a man’s decreased by 33 percent” (p. 8).
an “individual” matter. Women’s choice in opting out of the world of work
Mothers in U.S. society are consumed with the daunting could be viewed as a rational alternative to the “perfect
task of balancing the public and private, the responsibilities madness” that Warner describes in her book. Viewed this
of career and home. From the concerns of this group come way, “opting out” is not a failure of feminism but instead
the most pressing, if not dire, questions of our time: Who the only real solution to current economic and political cir-
will take care of the family? Without time to step back and cumstances. Additionally, Hirshman’s solutions or “rules”
reflect on the problem, mothers are trapped in a never- reinforce individualism: Women should solve this problem
ending circle of personal responsibility for making “choices” personally by strategically selecting a partner and main-
that don’t actually exist. They attempt to “perfect” a lifestyle taining a high level of ambition for work. At a time when
in which perfection is not possible. At the same time, a false there are no other alternatives, this may be good advice—
sense of equality is being experienced by a younger group of or the only advice. But what about the long term?
women as they pursue a path of individualism. If nothing Hirshman (2005) states that “the family is to 2005 what
changes, their sense of equality will be challenged as they the workplace was to 1964 and the vote was to 1920”
enter the stressful world of family life in the next decade. (p. 6). This should be viewed as a political challenge, call-
Out of this nexus comes the declaration that “feminism ing for a redistribution of resources. To achieve political
has failed.” Linda Hirshman’s research, first presented in change, like their sisters before them, third-wave feminists
The American Prospect (2005) and most recently pub- must work toward a redefinition of terms. This time, it is
lished in her book Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of not a redefinition of women’s nature, as it was in the first
the World (2006), notes that “half the wealthiest, most- wave of feminism. Although there are still questions about
privileged best educated females in the country stay home “the ethic of care” and women’s “natural inclination” or
with their babies rather than work in the market economy” “suitability” toward children and home, feminism in the
(2005, p. 1). For example, she provides data that show that second wave worked to provide more equitable answers
in the year 2000, only 38% of female Harvard graduates (Evans, 2003). The challenge for feminist leadership in the
with a master’s degree in business administration (MBA) third wave is to redefine women’s responsibility toward the
were working full-time. Hirshman (2005) correctly identi- private sphere of children and home.
fies the problem of the lack of change in the private lives
of women (p. 3). She argues, “While the public world has Third-Wave Leadership and
changed, albeit imperfectly . . . private lives have hardly Conservative Feminism
budged. The real glass ceiling is at home” (p. 1).
Hirshman also points to the flaws in so-called choice Feminism as it has been discussed so far has been
feminism. Women are faced with the “moral” dilemma of defined through a liberal ideological lens. Modern liberal
whether to work or stay at home with their children and ideologists in the United States generally express the view
that these “choices” are incredibly constrained. This is the that the federal or national government has a responsibility
frame that pits working moms against stay-at-home moms, to establish legislation and therefore programs to help peo-
thus creating a war between women rather than a war ple in need, to enhance equality from a nationwide per-
against patriarchy. Additionally, she points out that press spective, and to protect citizens from the ill effects of a
coverage of the “choice” dilemma does nothing to advance capitalist economic, or market, system. The New Deal pro-
the cause of women. Hirshman (2005) argues that women grams of the 1930s still serve as an example of modern
need real solutions, not feminist theories. She finds these liberal thought. With regard to U.S. feminism, liberal fem-
solutions in the world of work. She offers three rules to inists have sought to help women become an integral part
young women: “prepare yourself to qualify for good work, of the governing process by electing them at every level:
treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of local, state, and federal (Tong, 1998, p. 23). This enables
unequal resources when you marry” (p. 6). women, through political leadership, as legislators, execu-
On this last point she recommends that women either tives, and bureaucrats, to enact and implement laws that
find a spouse with less social power (i.e., marry down, are favorable to women.

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

76–•–II. HISTORY OF WOMEN’S PUBLIC LEADERSHIP

Not only are third-wave feminists rejecting the paradigm feminist-based programs and organizations, such as
of the second wave, they may also be rejecting the ideology women’s centers, on their college campuses. Attempts at
of modern liberalism. There is an obvious modern liberal including conservative perspectives in women’s center pro-
underpinning to second-wave feminism in U.S. politics. In grams have met with controversy on some campuses.
its quest for the collective, for expansion of women’s rights Often, at the heart of the controversy, is the issue of
through an equal rights amendment and endorsement of whether an individual or organization can claim to be fem-
pro-choice policy with regard to reproductive freedom, sec- inist while at the same time including a pro-life position on
ond-wave feminists embody a modern liberal political abortion. Feminist Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (1996) makes
stand. That is to say that the basic tenants of modern liber- the following comment on this subject:
alism are grounded in a view that the federal government
has a responsibility to create and administer legislation and Feminists accuse the religious right of trying to dictate what a
laws that promote equality and advance the cause of woman should be and how she should think about a vast array
minorities. The standpoint is from that of the collective, the of complicated problems. Meanwhile, these same feminists
broadest community. Conservatism tends to reject the col- practice the very thing they preach against. . . . Feminist
lective view and initiatives that are group based from the diversity does not embrace women who oppose abortion . . .
federal level. Conservatism favors a more localized, indi- (or) prefer to stay at home with children. (p. 30)
vidualized approach.
Conservative feminists, like third-wave feminists, reject Feminist scholars such as Jean Bethke Elshtain contend
what they see as a group-bound sameness, promoted by that liberal feminists are incorrect in their assertion that
second-wave feminists. Conservatives argue that liberal women need to be liberated from their traditional roles in
feminists make “monolithic” prescriptions or establish the family. She argues that “ideals and values from this
qualifications for calling oneself a feminist. Further, they world can exist separate from female subordination if
argue that individuals have the right to practice “private women’s traditional identities are not perceived as devoid
feminism” (over “public feminism”), which is expressed of vitality and substance and defined by male domination”
through personal and individual choices made in the pri- (Elshtain, 1982, p. 368). This perspective has also been
vate sphere of home and family (Koertge & Patai, 1994, described as “maternal” feminism and “communitarian”
p. 3). Liberal feminists argue that traditional identities feminism. Those holding these perspectives do not
have been forced upon women in the private sphere of consider the boundaries of the public and private spheres to
home and family; thus the public sphere is the only avenue be as sharp as liberal feminists may suggest.
for changing these perceptions. Most women in the third wave want to advance the idea
There is much debate among feminists and others as to that feminism is individual and fluid (Dicker & Piepmeier,
whether “conservative” feminism actually exists. There 2003). This goal gives way to models of leadership that
are, however, conservative women who claim feminism as encompass a much broader range than in previous feminist
part of their agenda. Academics such as Christina Hoff movements. In the third wave there is less of a commitment
Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? (1994), have to leadership that fosters a collective consciousness, yet a
argued that conservative feminism has a place in the third dynamic individualism that is pathbreaking with regard to
wave. The existence of organizations such as Independent achievement in both the professional and the personal
Women’s Forum and ifeminist.com confirm this sphere. So what can be said about leadership in the third
(Schreiber, 2008, p. 7). Sommers (1994) argues that con- wave of feminism? Broadly it may be defined as a break
servative feminism can be viewed as “equity” feminism, a with the collective paradigm of the second wave, retaining
feminism grounded in free market principles that favor the spirit of women’s cooperation while exploring a wider
equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. The range of individual initiatives. Scholars are still in the
concept of equity feminism has taken hold among process of studying third-wave leadership. The challenge
many younger conservative women who feel alienated from will come in measuring its real outcomes.

References and Further Readings Björnberg, U., & Kollind, A.-K. (2005). Individualism and
families. London: Routledge.
Addams, J. (1999). Why women should vote. In G. Klosko & Buszek, M.-E. (2000, Fall). Waving, not drowning: Thinking
M. G. Klosko (Eds.), The struggle for women’s rights about third-wave feminism in the U.S. Make, 86, 38–39.
(pp. 147–155). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dicker, R., & Piepmeier, A. (2003). Catching a wave. Boston:
Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta: Young Northeastern University Press.
women, feminism, and the future. New York: Farrar, Straus DiQuinzio, P. (1999). The impossibility of motherhood. New York:
& Giroux. Routledge.

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 8. Women’s Leadership and Third-Wave Feminism–•–77

Drake, J. (1997). Third wave feminisms. Feminist Studies, McGlen, N., O’Connor, K., van Assendelft, L., & Gunther-
23(1), 97–108. Canada, W. (2002). Women, politics, and American society
Elshtain, J. B. (1982). Antigone’s daughters: Reflections on (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
female identity and the state. Democracy, 2, 46–59. Orr, C. M. (1997). Charting the current of the third wave.
Elshtain, J. B., & Tobias, S. (1990). Women, militarism, and Hypatia, 12(3), 30–33.
war. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia. New York: Ballantine
Evans, S. (2003). Tidal wave: How women changed history at Books.
century’s end. New York: The Free Press. Potuchek, J. (1997). Who supports the family? Gender and
Fox-Genovese, E. (1996). Feminism is not the story of my life: breadwinning in dual-earner marriages. Palo Alto, CA:
How today’s feminist elite has lost touch with the real Stanford University Press.
concerns of women. New York: Doubleday. Schreiber, R. (2008). Righting feminism: Conservative
Freeman, J. (1974). The tyranny of structurelessness. In women & American politics. New York: Oxford
J. Jaquette (Ed.), Women in politics (pp. 202–214). University Press.
New York: Wiley. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: Shugart, H. A. (2001). Isn’t it ironic? The intersection of third
Penguin. wave feminism and Generation X. Women’s Studies in
Gillis, S., Howie, G., & Munford, R. (Eds.). (2004). Third wave Communications, 24(2), 1–3.
feminism: A critical exploration. New York: Palgrave Siegel, D. L. (1997). The legacy of the personal: Generating
Macmillan. theory in feminism’s third wave. Hypatia, 12(3),
Gilmore, S. (2001). Looking back, thinking ahead: Third wave 48–55.
feminism in the United States. Journal of Women’s Siim, B. (2000). Gender and citizenship. London: Cambridge
History, 12(4), 215–220. University Press.
Henry, A. (2004). Not my mother’s sister: Generational conflict Sommers, C. (1994). Who stole feminism: How women have
and third-wave feminism. Indianapolis: Indiana University betrayed women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Press. Swerdlow, A. (1990). Motherhood and the subversion of the
Heywood, L., & Drake, J. (1997). Third wave agenda: Being military state: Women strike for peace confronts the House
feminist, doing feminism. Minneapolis: University of Committee on Un-American Activities. In J. B. Elshtain &
Minnesota Press. S. Tobias (Eds.), Women, militarism, and war: Essays in
Hirshman, L. (2005, November 22). Homeward bound. The history, politics, and social theory (pp. 7–28). Savage, MD:
American Prospect. Retrieved from http://www.prospect Rowman & Littlefield.
.org/cs/articles?article=homeward_bound Swers, M. (2002). The difference women make. Chicago:
Hirshman, L. (2006). Get to work: A manifesto for women of University of Chicago Press.
the world. New York: Viking. Taylor, J. S., Layne, L. L., & Wozniak, D. E. (2004). Consuming
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
home and home becomes work. New York: Holt. Press.
Iannello, K. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy. New York: Tong, R. (1998). Feminist thought. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Routledge. Walker, R. (2004). We are using this power to resist. In
Klosko, G., & Klosko, M. G. (1999). The struggle for women’s V. Labaton & D. L. Martin (Eds.), The fire this time:
rights. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Young activists and the new feminism (pp. xi–xx). New
Koertge, N., & Patai, D. (1994). Professing feminism: York: Anchor Books.
Cautionary tales from the strange world of Women’s Warner, J. (2005). Perfect madness. New York: Riverhead
Studies. New York: Basic Books. Books.

(c) 2011 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.