![]() Can we really affirm that Betty Friedan has consciously removed part of her young radical engagement – as historian Daniel Horowitz affirmed in his Friedan’s provocative biography of 1998 – to embrace a more comfortable liberal feminist discourse? Can we actually consider The Feminine Mystique «the revolutionary manifesto of women's liberation», as it was by many defined? Is Friedan’s liberal analysis – aimed to examine the status of white heterosexual middle-class and educated American women – based on a primary exclusion according to class, race and sexual orientation? I will move from these still open questions to reconstruct the political debate which arose around Friedan’s work and her later commitment within the National Organization for Women (NOW), with a particular emphasis on the main criticisms to the structural limits of her political vision.īetty Friedan’s landmark manifesto, The Feminine Mystique, ignited the “second wave” of the women’s movement in 1963, permanently transforming the social fabric of the United States. This brilliant work was able to bring to light the famous “problem that has no name”, the sense of frustration and incompleteness lived in ‘50s by many American middle-class women, placed in name of their docile and uncompetitive femininity within the domestic sphere of suburban reality, in order to ensure political and social stability to the so-called “American way of life”. This contribution wants to retrace American feminist Betty Friedan’s fascinating biography and controversial reflection, adopting as focal point the book which allowed her to become a strong reference for the Liberal Women's Rights Movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s, and at the same time made her an extremely discussed and criticized public figure within the new Radical Feminist Reflection: The Feminine Mystique (1964).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |