Firestone: Extreme and Absurd or Progressive and Rational?

     I was really excited when I realized that one of the articles we were reading for class was on a prominent leader in the feminist movement, Shulamith Firestone. But as I read on I had a sense of unease, disheartenment almost, at the extremity of Firestone's actions. Was standing on the desk of the editor-in-chief of Ladies Home Journal and tearing up copies of the magazine in the editor’s face really necessary? Was there another, more diplomatic, way to handle the situation?

     I found myself wondering what she would think of me since I am a supporter of today’s feminist movement. The only conclusion I could come to is that she wouldn't think much of me at all. She’d say I don’t go far enough with my actions, I’m not supporting the right groups, I’m not angry enough. The more I thought about her, the more I disliked her. She seemed rigid, harsh, and unsympathetic to any ideas or feelings apart from her own. Firestone seemed so caught up in being aggressive and trying to force change that she couldn't take a step back and try compromise in order to possibly create more progress.

     What really bothered me about Firestone are some of the opinions she had concerning family and the role of gender. She essentially attacks the concept of the traditional family and undermines women who have chosen to raise a family. Firestone calls pregnancy “barbaric” and childhood “a supervised nightmare” but this seems absurd to a lot of us. Something else absurd to most is her vision of the world where women are freed by artificial reproduction and children are taken out of an abusive situation into loving one. Unlike Firestone, I was raised in a loving household where I was treated equally to my brother. I was never verbally abused by my father, in fact my father speaks out against acts of sexism he witnesses. This being so, I have no idea what Firestone went through and her family life is probably what shaped her opinions on family and motherhood. Since she was abused, it only makes sense that she want to prevent further abuse and oppression.

     The other statement of Firestone that had a negative effect on me was her statement on the ultimate goal of feminism, “The end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital difference between human beings would no longer matter culturally.” When I first read this it seemed like she wanted to eliminate the entire concept of sex distinction. In other words gender wouldn't exist. Eliminating gender can eliminate a central part of most people’s identities. This bothered me because being female is a big part of my identity and I've had a positive experience with my gender identity. But I've only had a positive experience, I haven’t faced oppression, and who’s to say that oppression now is the same as the oppression Firestone faced.

     I've come to realize that perhaps she didn't mean that society should eliminate gender, so much as it should eliminate the significance of gender. In other words, gender shouldn't affect culture, it shouldn't affect the distribution of power, and all genders should have equal advantages or equality period. She wants a world without oppression, where women are free to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, and most importantly she wants a world where “love flows unimpeded”.

     I find that I can’t disapprove of Firestone’s actions because where would women be – where would I be – without her? She was strong-willed, passionate, and determined to make a change and I’d say she made one. While we don’t live in the world she envisioned, we are certainly a step closer to it because of her actions.