Why We Are Not in the Third Wave of Feminism: The Existentialist's Argument

Abstract

Feminism has deeply embedded itself into the ethos of society after several decades of political and civil unrest. Originally abolitionists, first-wave feminists fought for suffrage but experienced tensions as black men received their right to vote before white women did. In the second wave, these divisions continued, as some feminist leaders segregated their marches. In 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw diagnosed this issue as a lack of attention to intersectionality, a political framework that addresses a variety of social issues simultaneously. However, this ideology isn’t novel. In the 1960s, Simone de Beauvoir created a definition of feminism that was inclusive of all women: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” As an existentialist, she believed that humans have socially constructed gender and thus could deconstruct or modify the social hierarchy. The 2017 Women’s March seemed to indicate Crenshaw and Beauvoir’s more inclusive spirit, as feminists of all backgrounds participated in a joint effort on a joint goal. But a deeper dive into the march reveals that the current generation of feminists has not tackled the root of the problem of intersectionality, hence perpetuating the same issues of the first and second wave. Both Simone de Beauvoir and a modern feminist named Koa Beck identify the cause of this immobility through capitalism and the commodification of feminism. Today, people claim that we are riding the third or fourth wave of feminism. But because we have not completely adopted an intersectional mindset, we have yet to leave the second wave.