How To Revive a Revolution

By NANCY GIBBS and JEANNE MCDOWELL BERKELEY Susan Faludi and Gloria Steinem

The crowd at Cody's Books in Berkeley came to see Gloria Steinem. But when the owner announced that surprise guest Susan Faludi was there to introduce her, the audience cheered for a hometown hero. After the speeches, both authors sat down with TIME, and they continued their joint interview last week in New York City.

Q. In dealing with the backlash against feminism, is it best to fight it head on or to repackage the feminist message, perhaps talking about "family" instead of "women's" issues?

Steinem: That's a mistake. It renders women invisible. This is a revolution, not a public relations movement. You have to speak to the constituency. If you say "family issues" to most women, it's like going back to the past -- and feeling guilty again. To make changes, you need new language. For instance, we could say "families" to honor more than one form, and inspire hope of change by saying "democratic families." But even so, we can't say to women, "You don't exist on your own."

Faludi: All family issues should not be women's issues. They should be human issues. The idea that women exist only when they're attached to children is the notion that feminism can somehow be repackaged as "family rights." In the past few weeks, there have been stories about the "myth of sisterhood," which attacked feminists for not focusing enough on the family. One writer said to succeed, feminists need to look at women's issues from a "children's perspective." Why should we? We're adults. What bothers me is the implication that women have to prove they are good mothers before they can ask for anything else, and the only way they can ask for something is through children.

Q. Since most women today embrace the goals of the women's movement, why are so many of them reluctant to embrace the feminist label?

Steinem: Women have two problems with the label. The first is that people don't know what it means. If they look it up in the dictionary and see that feminism just means the full economic, social and political equality of women, they'll agree. But the second is that people do know what it means. If you say, "I'm for equal pay," that's a reform. But if you say, "I'm a , feminist," that's equality for all females -- a transformation of society. As you get older, you realize you might as well say "feminist." Any term with the same meaning will be opposed too, and besides, if you're a woman, the only alternative is being a masochist.

Q. Is that realization the result of countless headlines announcing the "death of feminism"?

Steinem: That's always the way change is dealt with. The first big "death of feminism" headline was in 1969. Then the Equal Rights Amendment was either going to change Western civilization as we knew it and destroy the family, or it was unnecessary because we already had equality.

Q. Do you consider yourself a victim of the backlash?

Steinem: I don't want to sound like a complaining author, but there is a chasm between the important reviews and the popular response. What I wrote as a strengthening of self-authority, some reviewers called weakness -- even a retreat from activism. At first, I was very hurt, but then I realized it was partly their wishful thinking.

Faludi: It seems to me that the reaction to Gloria's book is a classic case of how the backlash works. There's been an almost willful misreading of her message. A friend of mine said it seemed like all those who want to dismiss feminism have been lying in wait for Gloria, because of her unsullied reputation. They were looking for any opening to start slinging mud.

Q. Does it matter that most of the mudslingers are women?

Steinem: We've reached the point where the movement is powerful enough to make jobs for antifeminist women. You don't get work selling out a movement until there is a movement. I used to think about that with Phyllis Schlafly. I thought, Well, at least she has a job.

Q. Is anyone who criticizes your books necessarily an antifeminist?

Faludi: No, as long as we're talking about responsible criticism. I'm critical of other feminists myself; I believe there should be more open discussion and disagreement. But so much of the criticism seems to be about a book I didn't write. I'm charged with saying there's a male conspiracy out there to put women down. Anyone who says that can't possibly have read the book. I say about 14 times that I don't mean there's a conspiracy. This is not a book about hating men.

Q. But there is a theme throughout the book of women as victims, men as oppressors.

Steinem: But that's true. It's not every woman and every man, but it's the culture that rewards men for dominating and rewards women for acceding to domination. It doesn't mean that we invented it, but it does mean that it's real.

Faludi: I also like to point out that despite all these efforts to turn women into victims, women did resist -- by not buying the clothes or rushing out to get married at 18, or by not becoming "neotraditionalists."

Steinem: By listening to their true voice -- a theme Susan and I both ended up with. I also think it's possible that intellectual women reviewers were less comfortable with my book than with Susan's because I'm bringing emotional concerns, childhood and other traditionally female values into the public sphere. I'm speaking personally; Susan is speaking as a professional reporter in a way that the world of journalism respects.

Faludi: In an odd way I was playing more by the boys' rules -- saying, O.K., you men will listen to data and "rational arguments" and statistics, and the body of evidence will convince you.

Steinem: It's objective, third-person reporting, in which you don't put yourself in the story. It's not that one method is better than the other -- you choose the method that suits the subject. Susan's method was exactly right because it got credibility within the world it was attacking. This book reminds me of the woman detective who wired herself and won her sexual- harassment case. Those guys taught her how to wire herself, and she did, and she caught them. It's a sweet victory, to win using their methods.

Q. You've been criticized for patronizing women, by saying they were sheeplike in following orders and going back into the home, without understanding that many may have wanted to stay home.

Faludi: A lot of that desire to stay home has nothing to do with feminism; it has to do with the economic opportunities out there, which shrank considerably. I certainly don't regard women as sheep, and I believe I have far more respect for my own sex than the average advertiser or TV programmer. Women were barraged with one article after another telling them that every other woman out there wanted to go home, so eventually that message seeped in, the same way it did with the marriage study. To say that women and men have been manipulated by popular culture is not the same as portraying women as mindless victims. The year after the marriage study came out, suddenly, miraculously, the number of women worried about getting married doubled. That was no coincidence. It's simply recognizing the power of the mass media.

Q. So you think the reason more women are saying they prefer to stay home is the backlash message, not their really wanting to stay with their kids?

Faludi: The surveys I've looked at indicate that roughly the same proportion of working men as working women fantasize about retreating to the home. Moreover, sometimes it's very hard to know what one thinks under the pressure of the backlash, to sort out what's you thinking and what's the internalized message about what you're supposed to think.

Q. Why the choice of self-esteem as a theme?

Steinem: This society, Western culture in general, has devoted itself to externalizing everything, whether it's obeying the demands of the church to win rewards after death, or the secular heaven of consumerism that makes us feel insecure if we don't buy endless things -- all the vast array of external hierarchies that depend for their authority on weakening our authority -- especially women's.

Faludi: Self-esteem is the basis for feminism because self-esteem is based on defining yourself and believing in that definition. Self-esteem is regarding yourself as a grownup.

Q. How are men reacting to your books?

Steinem: I think some feminist books should be for women only. It happens that my book is appropriate for men and women both, because the full self necessary for self-esteem has been denied more to women -- but also to men. Self-esteem is a way of saying to men that equality will help you become whole too.

Faludi: As women become more independent, they leave a lot of men struggling with confusion over how to define themselves.

Steinem: I would argue that masculinity limits a man's full range of human qualities, and so becomes a mask for a lack of self, shame, and low self- esteem.

Q. What is the difference between the women's movement today and the one that existed a decade or so ago?

Steinem: Throughout the 1970s, the movement was more consciousness raising in the classic sense. People were enunciating new issues. There were speakouts and demonstrations. That still goes on, but now that we have majority support, we're ready for institutional change. Women are beginning to connect our everyday lives to changing work patterns and even the government. It's a big leap to think that what happens to you every day -- in the secretarial pool, at the shopping center -- has anything to do with who is in the Senate or the White House. The connection is just beginning to be forged. We are only 25 years into what by all precedent is a century of feminism. But once you get a majority consciousness change, you also get a backlash. It's both an inevitable tribute to success and a danger. The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day. After all, a movement is only people moving.