<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > The Feminine Mystique</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/the_feminine_mystique/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 01:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Google honors a feminist original</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/google_honors_a_feminist_original/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/google_honors_a_feminist_original/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Naturalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maria Sibylla Merian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surinam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Metamorphosis of the Insects of Surinam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Feminine Mystique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sheryl Sandberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Betty Friedan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lean In]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13258894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Centuries before Sandberg and Friedan, there was Maria Sibylla Merian -- mother and pioneering naturalist]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maria wanted to study metamorphosis, if only she could find the time to investigate. Her two daughters needed her, many hours, every day. It was a thorny problem, this balancing work and motherhood, but she took the long view. When her children were young, she stayed close to home, investigated parasitoid wasps and tiger moths in the neighborhood and nearby gardens, taught painting and wrote two books about European insects. Later, when her daughters were grown and she was 52, she left her husband and sailed to South America to research the rainforest and venture, as she described it, "far out into the wilderness." Her masterwork, "The Metamorphosis of the Insects of Surinam," was published in 1705, more than 300 years ago.</p><p>Today, her 366th birthday, marked at Google by weaving her Surinam engravings in its Doodle for the day, is a chance to re-evaluate her legacy.</p><p>Many discussions of work/home life balance take as their starting point the publication of "The Feminine Mystique" 50 years ago. Feminists of the 60s and 70s are praised for opening our eyes or blamed for raising our expectations. Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In," Anne-Marie Slaughter's essay in The Atlantic about the impossibility of having it all, Marissa Mayer at Yahoo banning the telecommute, countless blogs and television pundits, all tell us how to navigate the modern world.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/google_honors_a_feminist_original/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/google_honors_a_feminist_original/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Makers&#8221;: How the feminist revolution was (partly) won</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/the_makers_how_the_feminist_revolution_was_won_%e2%80%94_and_lost/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/the_makers_how_the_feminist_revolution_was_won_%e2%80%94_and_lost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gloria Steinem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PBS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Madonna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[betty frieden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Feminine Mystique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[billie jean king]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13212817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new PBS documentary about the women's movement doesn't try to tell every story, but it has a lot to say]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Social movements are the stories of many, often only temporarily aligned, if that. And to tell one story means leaving things out. "Makers," the new documentary about the women's movement airing tonight on PBS, is noticeably aware of that, assiduously covering the bases of nearly every fissure that tore women apart in the last half-century: race, class, gender, sexuality, core political ideology, generational change.</div><div> <p>But to tell it all would take more than a lifetime, so here are three hours that are an excellent place to start, especially for those not particularly inclined to start anywhere. (The next place to go is the documentary's <a href="http://www.makers.com/" target="_blank">website</a>, an enormous archive of interviews, some of them with rare candor, from coal miner Barbara Burns to Hillary Clinton.)</p> <p>The story begins where most everyone would expect it to, with "The Feminine Mystique," the ennui of white, educated suburban women, Betty Friedan launching it all. (Even as her homophobia and other severe limitations are called out, you have to feel for the deceased Friedan when the camera slowly pans from her, sitting exhaustedly at the edge of the table, to introduce a cigarette-laced, effortlessly charismatic Gloria Steinem at the other end of the table.) But it doesn't stop there: Black women -- particularly Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton -- give voice to the general inapplicability of the problems of the suburban, single-earner households to the longtime realities of their lives. Lesbians talk of being openly shut out of the movement for fear they would hurt its image. Phyllis Schlafly, a woman identified as a "homemaker/writer," and Fox News commentator Monica Crowley rep for right-wing women and their hostility to the f-word.</p> <p>To "Makers'" credit, there are famous women here -- famous in the world at large, famous in the retellings of the women's movement -- but there are also women whose names we never heard or forgot, like Kathrine Switzer, the first woman who ran the Boston marathon (and was physically blocked by an official for her audacity), and Dusty Roads, a flight attendant who sued over discrimination. There is attention to cultural barriers and to legal and political ones, to violence and to resistance.</p> <p>Watching the documentary, it suddenly seems starkly clear that the most profound unresolved conflict of women's progress is not all of the competing struggles of identity, although they obviously matter, but an ambivalence about traditional female roles and activities. That ambivalence lies at the heart of unresolved questions about motherhood, the pleasures or pains of domesticity and fashion, sexuality and "objectification," the persistence of "pink ghetto" jobs held by women -- whether they're being rejected, embraced or reclaimed. (Interestingly, the often-bitter battles over pornography and other forms of paid sex work, for example, are hardly mentioned, unless you count Madonna and the picketing of the Miss America pageant.) And too often, this ambivalence is dispatched with a pat assertion that feminism is about women making choices, so all choices are good. It's beyond the documentary's provenance to solve these disputes, but it provides plenty of fodder to examine them.</p> <p>Madonna didn't sit for an interview, but there's an archival clip of her saying, "To the feminists, I would like to point out that they're missing a couple of things. Because I may be dressing like the typical bimbo or whatever, but I'm in charge, and isn't that what feminism is all about?" It functions as a book-end to the end of the documentary, which deals (with far less deftness, from this biased, 29-year-old observer's perspective) with whether young women are properly carrying on the mantle of the movement. Ms. co-founder Letty Cottin Pogrebin and her daughter Robin are presented as the archetype of semi-ungrateful younger women finding their mother's feminism to be incomplete. Of the younger Pogrebin's work-life conflict, narrator Meryl Streep intones, "Pogrebin quit her all-consuming television job. Instead, she worked shorter hours from home as a writer, relying more on her husband to support the family." Somehow, this problem, which is given a lot of airtime considering that just critique of the limits of Friedan, is posited as the problem of <em>too much</em> feminism, as opposed to not enough of it informing policies and norms.</p> <p>Shortly afterward, Michelle Rhee and Marissa Mayer -- controversial figures in their own rights -- come out to essentially shrug off feminism, followed by Monica Crowley saying, "I think modern feminism has sort of come full circle, women are saying, I don't need a movement, I don't need female leaders to tell me what I want to get out of my life. I know what I like. To me that's the great victory of so-called feminism is we are now here to say I can reject the feminist movement or I can go out on TV and have a different opinion from the so-called feminist leaders, and that's OK." It is certainly "OK," in the sense that women have a range of experiences and ideas, and that is both good and not going anywhere. But the documentary itself makes crystal clear that women have never all agreed on what their lives should look like and what would constitute progress. Backlash was happening all around the pioneers; certainly, not every woman embraced feminism even in the 1970s. The only thing that's changed is that some of them are now getting paid more to say so.</p> </div><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/the_makers_how_the_feminist_revolution_was_won_%e2%80%94_and_lost/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/the_makers_how_the_feminist_revolution_was_won_%e2%80%94_and_lost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thinking beyond Betty Friedan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/thinking_beyond_betty_friedan_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/thinking_beyond_betty_friedan_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jacobin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Betty Friedan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Feminine Mystique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13208579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Feminine Mystique, we should remember all great feminist minds]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.jacobinmag.com"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/06/Jacobin.jpg" alt="Jacobin" align="left" /></a></p><p>The past few days have generated <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/us-news-blog/2013/feb/20/pop-up-book-club-feminine-mystique" target="_blank">buzz </a>about Betty Friedan’s <em>The Feminine Mystique</em>, inspired by the 50th anniversary of the book’s publication. <em>The Feminine Mystique</em> was crucial for sharing feminist principles with a broad audience, and it “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/why-gender-equality-stalled.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0" target="_blank">is credited with igniting the women’s movement of the 1960s</a>,” so I too celebrate the book’s birthday.</p><p>Yet, as is true with any trade or philosophy, the most well-known work is often not the most profound or transformative work. In a sea of groundbreaking feminist writing, Friedan’s book is sort of like George Clooney is to great filmmakers right now: Important. Well known. Sexy. But only scratching the surface of the talent in the field. Above all else, Friedan’s book is ideologically safe by comparison to the full body of feminist writings. She analyzed the impact of a wide range of patriarchal institutions — publishing, military, politics — on middle class women’s lives without trying to up-end any of those institutions.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/thinking_beyond_betty_friedan_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/thinking_beyond_betty_friedan_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Betty Friedan started a revolution — and we&#8217;re still not there yet</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/betty_friedans_feminist_mistake/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/betty_friedans_feminist_mistake/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Betty Friedan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Feminine Mystique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daughters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Pick]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13200237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's been 50 years since "The Feminine Mystique" came out, and we are still feeling the pressure to "have it all"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Middle age is not generous to females. A man in his sixth decade can, like Alec Baldwin just this week did, proudly announce imminent parenthood with one's yoga instructor spouse. He can be a George Clooney, appearing on magazine covers looking like the guy every guy wants to be. But for women, it's different. As Tina Fey once said, "The definition of 'crazy' … is a woman who keeps talking even after no one wants to fuck her anymore." And that would generally be sometime soon after 30. But Betty Freidan's groundbreaking "Feminine Mystique," which turns 50 this week, is celebrating its milestone by getting a fresh shower of attention -- showing both just how remarkably it's aged and how stunningly topical it still is.</p><p>Friedan's book was a wallop of a tome, a peek behind the placid façade of the happy homemaker and into the dark heart of a seemingly enviable segment of American womanhood. Educated women, with their nice families and pretty homes, Friedan revealed, weren't fulfilled by staying at home and waxing their floors. They needed more. And by starting the conversation about that need, by making it OK for women to want something else, Friedan helped start a revolution.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/betty_friedans_feminist_mistake/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/betty_friedans_feminist_mistake/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does &#8220;The Feminine Mystique&#8221; still matter?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/does_the_feminine_mystique_still_matter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/does_the_feminine_mystique_still_matter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LA Review of Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Feminine Mystique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Betty Friedan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[literature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simone de Beauvoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Second Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lesbianism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13199186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest reissue of Betty Friedan's classic triggers an age-old debate about its place in the canon]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lareviewofbooks.org/"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/06/LARB_LOGO_RED_LIGHT1.jpg" alt="Los Angeles Review of Books" /></a> <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393063798/?tag=saloncom08-20">THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE</a> </em>is the Tupac Shakur of literary feminism, reincarnated at least once every decade with new insights that engender old beefs while at the same time serving as a reminder of why it’s a classic. Indeed, the book’s legacy often takes the form of whatever the written equivalent of an earworm is, its ideas setting up lifelong camp in (largely female) brains absent any real effort or study. Several years ago, Stephanie Coontz began writing a history of how <em>The Feminine Mystique</em> had impacted a generation of women; the result, 2011’s <em>A Strange Stirring</em>, found that many who had believed they’d read the book realized that, in fact, they hadn’t: they had simply absorbed it by osmosis. Similarly, those holding vehemently antifeminist beliefs considered the book an unforgivably radical text, full of screeds against everything from marital rape to — you guessed it — the tyranny of brassieres. Writes Coontz, “When they tried to explain the gap between what they ‘remembered’ and what I told them the book actually said, they usually decided that the title had conjured up such a vivid image in their minds that over time they had come to believe they had read it.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/does_the_feminine_mystique_still_matter/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/does_the_feminine_mystique_still_matter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
