This article in the LRB has a similar critique--of a certain type of feminism as basically being feminism for the bourgeois--and talks about the Feminine Mystique specifically in regards to the tendency to misrepresent books as indicators of real progress and change ('books as bombs.') Pertinent paragraph provided:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n24/jenny-turne…

"‘Why a book?’ Louis Menand asked recently in the New Yorker, in an article about how the 1963 publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique – about rich, educated suburban housewives suffering from ‘the problem with no name’ – became ‘the catalyst for a social change’. ‘But why a book? Why not a court case, or a boycott, as in the case of the civil rights movement – something that challenged existing law?’ Perhaps, he speculates, it was ‘because the book was a medium that women had relatively unobstructed access to as authors and as readers.’ Never mind Emma Goldman and her dancing: for revolution to reach middle-class women in the early 1960s, it had to be something you could get on with in the home between the vacuuming and the cocktails. This ‘books as bombs’ hypothesis only works for middle-class women, of course. Working-class women would not be lounging around of an afternoon, but out working, maybe cleaning or doing childcare for a richer woman who was busy reading or finding herself or getting herself a little job."

And not to be snarky, but Feminine Mystique, not Feminist Mystique.

WHAT? Not only have you never read one of the most important feminist works, you do not even know what the title is?

Cienna, I am going to have to ask you to hand over your ovaries, vagina, badge, and pink gun.

@2 - not snarky at all - but I did like Tolstoy's "War or Peace".

Say what you will, reading The Feminine Mystique decades after it was written, helped me better understand my mother's suicide in 1960.

By the time I got involved in the Feminist movement in the 1970s there was concerted movement to include women of color and economically improve life for pink collar women, by forcing open blue collar union work that paid better.

You should start out with something simple like Tom Brown's School Days.

Honest question here - Why is Bell Hooks' name never capitalized in the article?

@7: Duck.

(Seriously, man: that's her name. bell hooks. Do you also wonder why e e cummings' name is not capitalized?

There is never going to be one book that covers all injustices for everyone. Betty was writing about her world and her pain. Real pain that shouldn't be marginalized just because others had it worse. There will ALWAYS be someone who has it worse. People in positions of power love it when the oppressed stay silent because, well, they aren't that oppressed. And they love it even more when we eat those who should be our allies.

I saw bell hooks speak at Evergreen a long while back and a gay man stood up and asked why she hadn't spoken out more on the issue of gay rights (or possibly it was trans woman on trans rights - this was a long time ago). I remember her response though - she said that that was his or her struggle; that she couldn't be all things for all people.

That's all well and good, but neither Friedan nor hooks have spoken to the suffering of those who are female, black, jewish, lesbian, and crippled.

The Feminine Mystique was a long way from perfect, but does that mean it's without merit? Friedan wrote of her experience from her perspective, which seems valid to me, and it struck a chord with a lot of people at the time.

@ 10 Has Hooks ever spoken about the enormous amounts of bigotry against women, gays, Jews and Asians in the black civil rights and social justice community? It's strange that white feminists are lambasted for not doing enough for black women but does anyone ever ask what blacks in the social justice movement have done for those targetted by black bigots? I see an enormous amount of tolerence of bigotry in the anti-racist/social justice community when it is coming from blacks. Does Hooks ever call her own people out about this? I have no love of whiny white feminists yet they are far less racist, hypocritical and petty than many blacks in the anti-racism/social justice industry.

It's a sad statement about our society, but it's true: once you get rich white people on board, shit is more likely to change. In that sense, perhaps it was a brilliant strategic move to target the book at upper class white women.

I remember reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X in a college class. Even though I was 18 the hypocrasy was clear. Malcolm complained about whites demonizing and patronizing blacks while his book made it clear he held similar views of whites, Jews and women that he was complaining about. I mentioned this in class and was on the receiving end of a tongue lashing by 2 black students who could tolerate no criticism. Funny that black feminists have so much criticism of white feminists yet so little perspective on the wrongdoings and hypocrasy of their own race. Black feminists pointing out as many hypocrasies and slights towards blacks as they can find in white feminists and it is considered admirable. White feminists pointing out the hypocrasies and bigotry of black feminists and the black social justice movement is not allowed. For whatever flaws white feminists have the level or corruption, self indulgence, and racism doens't come close to that of that what is found in the black civil rights and feminst community. Does Ms. Hooks scrutinized her own race to the same degree as white feminists?

Ah, yes, there's nothing like reading arguments over who is oppressed more. It's like a Monty Python script. Then someone from the ADL announces that Jews are the most oppressed people in history. There would be a chorus of gay men singing about the oppression they've suffered. At the end, Charles would show up crying about the oppression against Marxist Hip-Hop fans from Zimbabwe.

Oh, the humanity!

Hooks is considered admirable for criticizing white woman.
If a white woman criticizes Hooks she will be called a racist, no matter how valid the criticism.
There is a rule everyone must follow to avoid being called a racist: blacks can judge but they must not be judged. Blacks can criticize but they can not be criticized. All criticism by blacks must be greated as though it is the pinicle of truth and wisdom with no question of the validity. All criticism of blacks must be greated as though the critic were a stark raving mad card carrying member of the KKK with no question as to the validity of the criticism.

Second-wave feminism. Isn't that where pole-dancing is considered a feminist stance?

I could take your critique a lot more seriously if you got the book's title right.

18, No. That's third wave feminism.

@7

I think Wikipedia says she doesn't capitalize her name, which is a pen name, not her legal name (Gloria Watkins, I think), because she takes the position that a text is more important than who wrote it, so she's supposedly minimizing her role in presenting her ideas.

White girl problems? What a stupid way to describe one half the population as inherently second class to the other half. That was the foundation for oppression of all women in the US and still is for many women around the world. The petty musings of intellectuals and their quilt ridden admirers does not change that.

@21: That is perhaps the dumbest rationale I have ever heard. "Pay attention to the correct spelling of my nom de plume, because it's NOT AT ALL ABOUT ME." Feh.

That aside...Friedan's work (which title has STILL not been corrected as of this post - way to go, Journalist Of The Future Cienna!) is necessarily of its time and the author's experience and culture. Basically, this is the next generation of the idiotic "DWEM" complaint. (DWEF?)

Andrew S and others here are presumptively assuming that hooks never reflects critically on anyone other than white feminists, but a rudimentary perusal of her work should disabuse you of that presumption. You don't have to agree with hooks, but give her enough credit not to assume you know already what she's going to say about something when you've not taken the time to find out.

The critique is not that everyone must always be dealing with everyone's stuggle in everything they write. The critique is that sometimes/often white feminists like Friedan wrote of their experiences as though they were shared by all women across races, classes, etc.

Just because something is only a problem for some people doesn't mean it isn't a problem. And there is nothing wrong with writing a book that focuses on one group. If others wanted to be included in the discussion, they could write or say something for themselves - and eventually, many did.

Oh, Andrew S is back. I remember a month or two ago, he had a post that was just another version of what one of the unregistered trolls posted. Which make you think, doesn't it?

Speaking as a straight white middle-class male, comparative victimology was always one of the best bones we could throw to get the dogs off our heels and fighting among themselves. Obviously it still works.