Lowman: Interview Assignment

A Seasoned Sort of Feminism

Sitting in the cool shade of a covered patio listening to the wind pass through the leaves of the river oaks and the marsh grass, my interviewee and I were put at ease by the calmness of our surroundings. On the patio were souvenirs from around the world and a table topped with a piece of glass to protect the pictures layered between the two surfaces—evidence of travels and experiences meant to be shared. Barbara McPipkin, indeed, had much to share about her life. As a sixty-five-year-old, middle-class, southern white woman from Savannah, a happily married mother, and a devoted grandmother, she lived through the cusp of the first and second waves of feminism and currently witnesses what is considered to be the third wave; further, she experienced through the decades the changes from one mode of thought to the next within both social and feminist ideologies. As society became more progressive, women conjured the strength to challenge societal expectations via consciousness-raising and embraced the concept of the “new woman.” Although she spent most of her life in a conservative era where society expected women to fulfill a certain role, Barbara eventually transgressed the confines of that era’s social restrictions through the implementation of her individual, feminist-aligned views and her heightened awareness of the oppressive forces at work before the time when women voiced their subordination.
I began my interview with Barbara by asking her to give a definition of feminism: “Independent thinking for a woman.” Feminism can be defined in multiple ways, but the essential understanding of the word embodies the idea of total equality. While I believe women need to demand an equal position to men within society, this demand should not be at the expense of denying our womanhood. Reflecting Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s concept of differences between the sexes in the “Declaration of Sentiments,” our maternal nature and emotional depth are innate differences that separate us from men; in that sense, we have strengths unknown to the male persona granted through biology (Stanton 548). Later in the interview, I asked if Barbara identified as a feminist; she looked at me with a curious expression, then answered after deep contemplation that she “does now, but [I] haven’t always. It’s come with age.” Barbara described a time when “feminism wasn’t an option” because women were unaware the concept existed. I found this interesting considering the force of the feminist movement now as a primary result of consciousness-raising. By gaining access to education, exposure to culture and knowledge has illuminated woman’s inferiority within the male-dominated society. This illumination did not occur for Barbara until after her marriage to her husband. Like many other women of her time, she married at the age of eighteen because that was what was expected of young women. Barbara described the oppression she felt due to societal expectations and limitations: “No one thought women wanted an education. I think I didn’t realize I was capable of more than what society afforded me.” Women before the transition into the second wave of feminism in the 1960s were raised simply to be beautiful and to perform domestic jobs well in preparation for marriage; however, the arrival of the sixties was pivotal in the struggle for women to define themselves. Barbara mentioned Woodstock as a catalyst in the emergence of freethinking among women and the breaking of a “pattern from the way it should be and the way it could be replaced it.” This transition truly embodied what feminists meant by a “new woman.” Women after the sixties no longer wanted to allow their lives to be governed by what society deemed appropriate; instead, they dared to broaden their female “sphere” by immersing themselves into the work force and educational institutions.
Though she grew up in a conservative era when society valued traditional marriage roles, Barbara’s views reflect those of a true feminist: equal partnership. She describes a role-playing system within a marriage entirely exclusive of sex and gender; instead, one spouse assumes a role as a leader and the other as a supporter depending upon the situation at hand. Again, Barbara stressed that her feminist approach to her marriage developed progressively. Her ideas now reflect her growth as a woman and her self-realization that her way of living life should not be established by anyone but herself. Ultimately, Barbara allowed herself to become an independent woman through her own marriage. By working within the boundaries of marriage, Barbara’s method parallels the liberal feminist cause—activism within the established system. She disproves Betty Friedan’s notions that marriage and happiness are not unanimous; Barbara obtained a college education while married, opened her own interior design studio, and continued to pursue intellectual and artistic endeavors through community involvement in organizations such as Arts on the Coast and the Savannah Historical Society (Friedan 46). She admitted that she was “one of the lucky ones” because her husband was not a domineering man and allowed Barbara to freely pursue her goals. She further describes much of her young adulthood and the caging effects of many marriages during that time: “Women before now suffered in silence, and if you had a bad situation, you just had to grin and bear it.” Ironically, when I asked Barbara if she had any recollection of the publication of Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique in 1963, she denied any knowledge of the book whatsoever. Barbara discussed the transformation of women after the sixties, though, saying that a change occurred, and suddenly women felt as if they could “talk about their issues and share [them]”—a direct result of the introduction of consciousness-raising. She did, however, remember reading Gloria Steinem’s articles published in the popular magazine “Cosmopolitan.” Barbara professed that she “never could identify with [Steinem], explaining that she would agree with parts of the feminist writer’s arguments but never the whole. She specifically referenced one of Steinem’s arguments stating that she “didn’t mind a man opening a door for [her].” I smiled to myself at this comment, remembering a heated debate early in the semester in my Women’s Studies class as to whether men should or should not open doors for women.
Having discussed marriage, the interview naturally led itself into the discussion of motherhood. Barbara refused to believe that women could maintain full-time careers and successfully balance work with motherhood: “I just don’t think it’s possible. You can have a part-time job but a mother needs to be there during the formative years.” She further argued that dropping children off at day-care at six o’clock in the morning then picking them up at six o’clock at night did not constitute parenting; rather, such a life showed a woman’s denial of her biological role to nurture and care for her children. While I believe that Barbara has a valid argument, I find the ultimatum she presents confining by forcing women to stall a certain aspect of their lives in order to introduce another; when one door opens, another door should not be forced shut. Additionally, she supported the use of contraceptives but condemned the use of abortion as a means of birth control. She described abortion as if it should be regarded as a common medical procedure; however, its availability must be limited to cases of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger. She stated, “There are too many people who want babies and can’t have them due to medical reasons. Young girls or women who are pregnant but can’t take care of a baby should have a place to go.” By mentioning a place to go, Barbara presented the idea of potential adoptive parents providing care and other necessities to pregnant mothers until the baby was born and the adoption papers were signed. Her decision to support abortion grants the right of the mother to life; however, denies a woman of her right to choice.
With the progression of power within the feminist movement, changes within society have followed this progression, some changes rendered positive others negative. While women continue to effectively separate themselves from the traditional societal standards for a woman, society has instilled a new oppressive standard of beauty. Barbara stated that the “persona of physical beauty has always been there, but people haven’t always been so hung up on physical appearance.” She jokingly remarked that women are too skinny right now, but a truth resounds in her perception. With the emergence of media and easy access to sources of media, society now establishes a certain “type” of woman that is deemed beautiful and to be regarded as such, we must conform. Barbara, ironically, described a more individualistic woman in regards to appearance: “What looked good on you was what you wore.” I find a certain strangeness in the individualism of beauty during the first and second waves, yet women then were more confined by both location and society. Though media has produced a narrower view of feminine beauty, it has also made women more comfortable with their sexuality. Barbara described that she “[felt] more normal now than when she was growing up.” In previous decades, the female body was a taboo subject not meant for discussion. When a girl first began her menstrual cycle, she generally had no idea what was happening to her body because her mother never mentioned puberty and the transformations a female body encounters. Summarily, women have a healthier outlook of their bodies today than in years past.
In conclusion, Simone de Beauvoir expresses a basic truth in the feminist movement: “If woman seems to be the inessential which never becomes the essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change.” Having lived the majority of her years in a conservative era, Barbara has actively challenged traditional views by not accepting to comply with society’s standards. She has made herself the “essential” through her life choices (Beauvoir). Although she has taken a passive role in expressing her subordination within society, Barbara relied on her individuality to guide her in her choices and to protest the constraints placed upon women of her generation. As a result, Barbara, a feminist at heart, provides my generation with an understanding of how women should continue to progress in our struggle for equality.