Changes

Daniel Horowitz’s [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558491686/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1558491686&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=5d543e73214aafe431e8649994d6d853 Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique] attempts to reevaluate the intellectual and political underpinnings of Friedan’s feminist thought and more specifically, the experiences and ideas that shaped her classic 1963 work The Feminine Mystique. Freidan’s Friedan’s construction of how she came to author her 1963 work differs greatly with Horowitz’s research. Often cryptic about her work experience for various union publications such as the United Electrical and Machine Workers (UE) and Federated Press, Friedan obscured such experiences explaining her awakening as “cathartic” but unconnected to her time as a labor journalist. Moreover, despite her own written contributions to women’s magazines of the period, Friedan argued that such media created the feminine mystique in which she found herself trapped. Thus, Friedan’s “awakening” appears non-political, non-radical, and self -driven.

====What shaped Betty Friedan's worldview?====Pushing back against this formulation, Horowitz suggests that Friedan’s years at Smith College, experiences at the Highlander Folk School and work as a labor journalist/activist reshaped her world view while also raising her own gender consciousness. For example, Horowitz connects several critical ideas of The Feminine Mystique to Friedan’s Smith professors such as Dorothy Wolf Douglass but also to early female writers from her union days, especially those espousing Popular Front beliefs. Friedan’s work at the UE and the Federated Press illustrated a commitment to the working class and minorities that many have criticized The Feminine Mystique for lacking. However, Horowitz repeatedly illustrates that Friedan wrestled with such issues for decades in various professional capacities and even personal life, excluding them from the final draft of Feminine Mystique for fear of publication rejection. According to Horowitz, Friedan’s experiences with McCarthyism, anti-semitism, and disillusionment with the labor movement itself led her to downplay race and class issues. Red baiting along with the associations of the time that conflated Jews with political radicals imbued a theoretical and narrative caution in Friedan’s work. Comparing Mystique’s initial draft with that of its published version, Horowitz carefully examines the shift in focus. If Friedan’s early draft exhibited a focus on class and race issues paralleling the problem of the “woman question”, her final work jettisoned such arguments for a white middle class perspective. In addition to publication concerns, Horowitz suggests Friedan’s academic background in psychology along with her own experiences involving therapy contributed to changes in Mystique’s published edition.

Interrogating the period in which Freidan claimed According to be “trapped by the Feminine Mystique”Horowitz, Friedan’s experiences with McCarthyism, anti-semitism, Horowitz reveals a women engaged professionally and intellectually. Throughout disillusionment with the 1940s labor movement itself led her to downplay race and 1950s, Friedan continued to write while in also participating in class issues. Red-baiting along with the Intellectual Research Pool (IRP), putting her in contact with some associations of the leading scholars time that conflated Jews with political radicals imbued a theoretical and writers of her daynarrative caution in Friedan’s work. Moreover, her own suburban experience differed greatly Comparing Mystique’s initial draft with that of the stereotype. Ratherits published version, Friedan and her husband of Horowitz carefully examines the time, lived shift in mixed communities that featured a more cosmopolitan, less conformist culturefocus. Thus, If Friedan’s appropriation early draft exhibited a focus on class and race issues paralleling the problem of the Feminine Mystique in her own life may not have been as exact as “woman question”, her final work claimsjettisoned such arguments for a white middle class perspective. StillIn addition to publication concerns, her time Horowitz suggests Friedan’s academic background in American suburbs, work psychology along with the IRP, and her former Smith connections shifted her gaze own experiences involving therapy contributed to the lives of white middle class suburban womenchanges in Mystique’s published edition.

The importance of how Friedan’s Interrogating the period in which Freidan claimed to be “trapped by the Feminine Mystique developed serves ,” Horowitz reveals a driving force in Horowitz’s workwomen engaged professionally and intellectually. Hoping to connect Friedan’s thought Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Friedan continued to write while in also participating in the Old LeftIntellectual Research Pool (IRP), Horowitz argues “Friedan’s life suggests that she served as a crucial link between generations putting her in contact with some of the leading scholars and writers of advocates for women’s advancementher day. Moreover,” which had been obscured by Friedan’s her own explanationssuburban experience differed greatly with that of the stereotype. The importance of this as Horowitz notes emerged in conflicts between Progressive Feminists like Rather, Friedan and her younger 1960s counterparts who “had little or no inkling husband of what their progenitors … had experienced.” This disconnect prevented wider understanding between Second Wave feminists resulting the time, lived in damaging intercine battlesmixed communities that featured a more cosmopolitan, less conformist culture. MoreoverThus, Friedan’s appropriation of the Feminine Mystique in her own life may not have been as exact as homophobia found expression through many Popular Front feminists, Friedan proved no exception.. Not only homophobia explains her inability to incorporate homosexuality into feminismwork claims. Though Friedan focused significant segments of Still, her time in American suburbs, work to “identity”with the IRP, and her use of the term differed greatly from the emergence of the 1970s/1980s “Identity Politics”. Thus, former Smith connections shifted her opposition gaze to homosexuality grew out of her generally dim view the lives of “Identity Politics”white middle class suburban women.

Though successful in reorienting ====Why is it important how Friedan developed her ideas about ?====The importance of how Friedan’s intellectual development in crafting The Feminine Mystique, developed serves a driving force in Horowitz’s work proves less satisfying in other ways. Suffering from Hoping to connect Friedan’s own hostility toward his projectthought to the Old Left, Horowitz could not access argues “Friedan’s life suggests that she served as a significant portion crucial link between generations of advocates for women’s advancement,” which had been obscured by Friedan’s papers own explanations. The importance of this as Horowitz notes emerged in conflicts between Progressive Feminists like Friedan and correspondence, thus, limiting some her younger 1960s counterparts who “had little or no inkling of his conclusionswhat their progenitors … had experienced.” This disconnect prevented wider understanding between Second Wave feminists resulting in damaging internecine battles. AdditionallyMoreover, in numerous placesas homophobia found expression through many Popular Front feminists, Horowitz deconstructs articles or editorials printed by publications for which Friedan served as editor or columnist suggesting she wrote the articles in question while simultaneously noting that one cannot be positive she authored themproved no exception.. Not only homophobia explains her inability to incorporate homosexuality into feminism. As with any psycho historyThough Friedan focused significant segments of her work to “identity”, her use of the term differed greatly from the author must draw conclusions about ideas and events that only emergence of the subject can clearly articulate1970s/1980s “Identity Politics”. Thus, her opposition to homosexuality grew out of her generally dim view of “Identity Politics”.

Though successful in reorienting ideas about Friedan’s intellectual development in crafting The Feminine Mystique, Horowitz’s work proves less satisfying in other ways. Suffering from Friedan’s own hostility toward his project, Horowitz could not access a significant portion of Friedan’s papers and correspondence, thus, limiting some of his conclusions. Additionally, in numerous places, Horowitz deconstructs articles or editorials printed by publications for which Friedan served as editor or columnist suggesting she wrote the articles in question while simultaneously noting that one cannot be positive she authored them. As with any psychohistory, the author must draw conclusions about ideas and events that only the subject can clearly articulate. ====Conclusion====Ultimately, Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique reshaped ideas about gender and women’s rights. Though her prism had shifted from working class/racial concerns to the entrapment of middle class white women, it nonetheless established the debate over such issues. Friedan’s inability (or unwillingness) to include working -class, gay, and minority women remains regrettable however, Daniel Horowitz’s work attempts to trace this shift while providing Friedan’s contributions to the feminism within the larger historical framework of the Old Left and the labor movement.