The DOI matches its Crossref record.
:Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana, and White Feminist Movements in America's Second Wave
Abstract
Benita Roth's timely and insightful sociological account of second-wave feminism combines two trends in the recent surge of writings on 1970s feminism: new attention to memories/memoirs of activists, known and unknown, and the search for a way out of the myth that feminism did not matter to women of color. Roth addresses both and along the way makes headway in working out a number of historiographical issues that have long burdened histories of the second wave. In terms of oral history, Roth's is a compensatory strategy intended to bring in histories of women and groups whose manifestos and position papers did not appear in edited collections like Robin Morgan's Sisterhood is Powerful (1970) or Toni Cade's The Black Woman (1970) and whose voices have not been well archived. The group of feminists under examination came of age politically in what Roth calls a “competitive social movement sector” in the late 1960s and 1970s when the ferment of reform and revolution had the potential to divide political allegiances of women. Using interviews done in 2000, Roth treads her way through the familiar story of female activists facing the sexism of their male peers in movements like black nationalism, Chicano rights, and the New Left. To this she adds the recollection of those women who chose to leave women's caucuses within (for lack of a better term) home movements to form organized feminist groups. Their memories record the disappointment and anger at the restricted roles they as “women” played in student movements and the hostility and ridicule they faced from their male peers as they created their own race and class-specific feminisms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Intersectionality's Definitional Dilemmas
Collins, P. H. (2015) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142 · Cited by 2,419
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x · Cited by 1,698
Gray, K. L. (2012) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2011.642401 · Cited by 277
Kapilashrami, A., Hill, S., & Meer, N. (2015) · Social Theory & Health · doi:10.1057/sth.2015.16 · Cited by 200
Mapeando a imaginação feminista: da redistribuição ao reconhecimento e à representação
Fraser, N. (2007) · Revista Estudos Feministas · doi:10.1590/s0104-026x2007000200002 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerhard, J.
- Venue
- The American Historical Review
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1563-1564
- ISSN
- 0002-8762 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-5239
- OpenAlex
- W2761778099
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: :Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana, and White Feminist Movements in America's Second Wave. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/ahr.110.5.1563
- The paper
- Gerhard, J. (2005). :Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana, and White Feminist Movements in America's Second Wave. The American Historical Review. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.110.5.1563
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.