352 Dorothy Chansky definite continuity with the second wave in this battle cry cum position statement, this is not the way the third wave is commonly seen.Astrid Henry's superb history of third-wave feminism in relation to its second-wave forebears demonstrates clearly that feminism was never single in its focus,and that the multiple strands best-known today were present from the start.52 These include racism and lesbianism within and as projects of feminism;the invisibility of women beyond child-bearing age in media and in activist agendas;workplace harassment of women regardless of sexual preference; child-care responsibilities falling disproportionately on women,again,regardless of sexual preference or class;and double standards regarding behavior and appearance as well as sexual activity.In other words,no single approach is"adequate to today's problems,"as these problems are legion,entrenched,and intertwined with racism, sexism,and economic interest.Moreover,no single approach was ever considered adequate,much less a party line. Still,Henry notes that third-wavers consistently "disidentify"with feminists and feminism of the 1960s and 1970s,reducing the second wave's contours to a "prison- like space"-a "feminist ghetto...[wherel political correctness governs its inhab- itants,establishing a clear-cut moral universe in which feminism provides all the easy answers,"and construing its founders and participants as sexless,puritanical, doctrinaire,heterosexual,and white,even when invoking activist writers such as bell hooks,Lillian Faderman,Rita Mae Brown,Kate Millett,Gloria Anzaldua,and Alice Walker as leaders and influences.53 At its simplest,Henry notes,third-wave feminism is attributed to age;that is,feminism practiced by those born after the baby-boom generation.A second understanding,though,is that third-wave feminism is ideologi- cal and does not refuse the findings and goals of the second wave;rather,it develops an understanding of the pleasures as well as the dangers of beauty culture,sexual abuse,and power structures(classic second-wave concerns,pace Steinem circa 1981), while also situating these concerns in a globalized,mediatized,technology-laden, postmodern default setting that did not exist in the 1970s.This understanding of a third wave-as an"ideological stance in relation to contemporary social and political realities"-uncouples it from age and suggests that anyone can play.Finally,Henry suggests that third-wave feminism may be characterized by its local activism and a particular form of feminist consciousness(which she does not define),rather than by being "a large-scale social justice movement."5 Only the third definition marks a sig- nificant difference from the second-wave stance,although in practice nearly all grass roots work was always characterized by local activism,and consciousness-raising was always about small,local gatherings. Why is a book like Henry's needed to point out the blatant forgettings and incon- gruities seemingly hard-wired into ideas about feminism of roughly the past two decades?Why do women who take for granted the advances of the 1960s and 1970s refuse to identify as feminists (the famous "I'm not a feminist,but..."stance)?Jen- nifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards point out that"the fact that access isn't equality plagues our understanding of modern feminism,"leading to an equation of feminism with whiteness and middle-classness because "the gains of feminism have been Astrid Henry,Not My Mother's Sister:Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism(Bloomington: Indiana University Press,2004). 0Ibid,149. 4bid,34-36. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions352 / Dorothy Chansky definite continuity with the second wave in this battle cry cum position statement, this is not the way the third wave is commonly seen. Astrid Henry's superb history of third-wave feminism in relation to its second-wave forebears demonstrates clearly that feminism was never single in its focus, and that the multiple strands best-known today were present from the start.52 These include racism and lesbianism within and as projects of feminism; the invisibility of women beyond child-bearing age in media and in activist agendas; workplace harassment of women regardless of sexual preference; child-care responsibilities falling disproportionately on women, again, regardless of sexual preference or class; and double standards regarding behavior and appearance as well as sexual activity. In other words, no single approach is "adequate to today's problems," as these problems are legion, entrenched, and intertwined with racism, sexism, and economic interest. Moreover, no single approach was ever considered adequate, much less a party line. Still, Henry notes that third-wavers consistently "disidentify" with feminists and feminism of the 1960s and 1970s, reducing the second wave's contours to a "prison￾like space" - a "feminist ghetto . . . [where] political correctness governs its inhab￾itants, establishing a clear-cut moral universe in which feminism provides all the easy answers," and construing its founders and participants as sexless, puritanical, doctrinaire, heterosexual, and white, even when invoking activist writers such as bell hooks, Lillian Faderman, Rita Mae Brown, Kate Millett, Gloria Anzaldua, and Alice Walker as leaders and influences.53 At its simplest, Henry notes, third-wave feminism is attributed to age; that is, feminism practiced by those born after the baby-boom generation. A second understanding, though, is that third-wave feminism is ideologi￾cal and does not refuse the findings and goals of the second wave; rather, it develops an understanding of the pleasures as well as the dangers of beauty culture, sexual abuse, and power structures (classic second-wave concerns, pace Steinem circa 1981), while also situating these concerns in a globalized, mediatized, technology-laden, postmodern default setting that did not exist in the 1970s. This understanding of a third wave - as an "ideological stance in relation to contemporary social and political realities" - uncouples it from age and suggests that anyone can play. Finally, Henry suggests that third-wave feminism may be characterized by its local activism and a particular form of feminist consciousness (which she does not define), rather than by being "a large-scale social justice movement."54 Only the third definition marks a sig￾nificant difference from the second-wave stance, although in practice nearly all grass roots work was always characterized by local activism, and consciousness-raising was always about small, local gatherings. Why is a book like Henry's needed to point out the blatant forgettings and incon￾gruities seemingly hard-wired into ideas about feminism of roughly the past two decades? Why do women who take for granted the advances of the 1960s and 1970s refuse to identify as feminists (the famous "I'm not a feminist, but . . ." stance)? Jen￾nifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards point out that "the fact that access isn't equality plagues our understanding of modern feminism," leading to an equation of feminism with whiteness and middle-classness because "the gains of feminism have been 52 Astrid Henry, Not My Mother's Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004). 53 Ibid., 149. 54 Ibid., 34-36. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions