| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Gangnam Nationalism: Why Psy’s Anti-American Rap Shouldn’t Surprise You | Main | Pardis Sabeti, the Rollerblading Rock Star Scientist »

December 08, 2012

Bad Feminist

Gay-1

Roxane Gay in the Virginia Quarterly Review (via Siva Vaidhyanathan):

My favorite definition of a feminist is one offered by Su, an Australian woman who, when interviewed for Kathy Bail’s 1996 anthology DIY Feminism, described them simply as “women who don’t want to be treated like shit.” This definition is pointed and succinct, but I run into trouble when I try to expand it. I fall short as a feminist. I feel like I am not as committed as I need to be, that I am not living up to feminist ideals because of who and how I choose to be. I feel this tension constantly. As Judith Butler writes in her 1988 essay, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution”: “Performing one’s gender wrong initiates a set of punishments both obvious and indirect, and performing it well provides the reassurance that there is an essentialism of gender identity after all.” This tension—the idea that there is a right way to be a woman, a right way to be the most essential woman—is ongoing and pervasive.

We see this tension in socially dictated beauty standards—the right way to be a woman is to be thin, to wear make up, to wear the right kind of clothes (not too slutty, not too prude, show a little leg, ladies), and so on. Good women are charming, polite, and unobtrusive. Good women work but are content to earn 77 percent of what men earn. Depending on whom you ask, good women bear children and stay home to raise them without complaint. Good women are modest, chaste, pious, submissive. Women who don’t adhere to these standards are the fallen, the undesirable. They are bad women.

Butler’s thesis could also apply to feminism. There is an essential feminism, the notion that there are right and wrong ways to be a feminist, and there are consequences for doing feminism wrong.

Essential feminism suggests anger, humorlessness, militancy, unwavering principles, and a prescribed set of rules for how to be a proper feminist woman, or at least a proper white, heterosexual, feminist woman—hate pornography, unilaterally decry the objectification of women, don’t cater to the male gaze, hate men, hate sex, focus on career, don’t shave. I kid, mostly, with that last one. This is nowhere near an accurate description of feminism, but the movement has been warped by misperception for so long that even people who should know better have bought into this essential image of feminism.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 09:30 AM | Permalink

Comments

My favorite definition of a feminist is one offered by Su, an Australian woman who, when interviewed for Kathy Bail’s 1996 anthology DIY Feminism, described them simply as “women who don’t want to be treated like shit.”
So the problem might be that women who don't feel that they're being treated like shit find it difficult to identify themselves as feminist. Perhaps feminists should be described as women who don't want any women being treated like shit. And perhaps successful women, like Marissa Mayer, who don't consider themselves feminist, should understand that they are expressing indifference toward the many women who are, most decidedly, being treated like shit.

Posted by: Ken Pidcock | Dec 8, 2012 9:25:57 PM

Ken, I thought this was a very reflective essay. And truthful. When women like Mayer equate feminism with the absence of positive energy, all that says to me is that they are unaware of the contribution it has made to their highly successful work lives.

40 to 50 years ago, women braver than Mayer had to be shrill and unapologetic to secure the privileges she enjoys, and she cannot understand that. It's completely to be expected -- the way the children of someone born poor who worked inconceivably hard to rise to affluence take food on the table for granted. What? She should be grateful?? It's only dinner...

What is more alarming is that Mayer's remark suggests she seems not to have noticed the mounting threat to women and girls posed by right wing politicians and religious leaders. This threat is far more menacing to women of slender means, of course -- women who cannot fly to Switzerland to terminate a pregnancy, for instance. This is a divide worth getting worked up about, when high-earning women who have benefited from feminism vote to the right to put their financial gains ahead of a sisterly concern for the human rights of poor women. An example of women being treated like shit by other, better placed women -- hideously cruel, distinctly non-righteous.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 8, 2012 11:26:00 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Norman Costa on Dear Guardian: You’ve Been Played

Dave Ranning on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Joel Grant on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

musafir on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Norman Costa on Race Is Not Biology

Geoff on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Kai Matthews on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

fallensparks on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

jon s on Race Is Not Biology

musafir on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

musafir on Faith Healing

Dave Ranning on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Geoff on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Luke Lea on Race Is Not Biology

fallensparks on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Luke Lea on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

jo smith on Guy de Maupassant

Geoff on Jeremy Scahill & Noam Chomsky on Secret U.S. Dirty Wars From Yemen to Pakistan to Laos

Jim on Friday Poem

JF on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Jesse on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Kenan Malik on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Pierre on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

chris on Race Is Not Biology

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed