Roxane Gay wrote an article for the Virginia Quarterly Review called “Bad Feminist.” I heard about it from reading Tavi’s interview with Bitch magazine (link at the end of the article, but you don’t have to read it for this post.) I strongly suggest you read Bad Feminist before this article–it doesn’t have “spoilers” or whatever but most of my points are directly addressing Gay’s. Just a suggestion.
Tavi’s article is actually a really good segway into Gay’s. She talks about, with complete validity, the fact that she does not consider herself an activist and though she is a feminist, not everything she does must be a feminist act. I spoke in my last article about the importance of subjective, friendly debate of feminist issues. This is that. To be honest, I never understood the “artist vs. activist” distinction, and I still don’t. I do not think that they are mutually exclusive, and, like I said, I just don’t understand the distinction. Furthermore, I entirely see the latter point, that not everything a feminist does must be a feminist act, but I respectfully disagree. Maybe this is the “activist” talking, but isn’t it important in order to have equality to consider feminism in everything? I don’t even mean that in a hyperbolic way–I find it unrealistic to decide that I’m only going to actively discuss inequality in the sense of parenting, or that I’ll shave my legs even though I don’t want to and shouldn’t have to. That said, Tavi’s point is in the context of Rookie, and she is essentially saying that Rookie can’t be perfect and entirely equitable. I definitely agree with that–Rookie is feminine, and feminine is not ant-feminist. It is anti-feminist to enforce femininity, but that’s really not what Rookie is doing.
I have mixed feelings about the other article, Bad Feminist. It makes me feel sad and awful overall because because it says a lot about the feminist movement. It can be exclusive, at times, and the article is a woman’s opinions on how she felt excluded from feminism. At least, that’s one way of looking at it. On that note, I want to say that any and all criticism of the article is not meant to imply that the writer or anyone is a “bad feminist.”
Moving on, Gay’s article is a little misleading, until the end. She goes into detail about how she considers herself a bad feminist for a while, but then at the end offers a conclusion, saying that somewhere along the line she was presented with the idea that a feminist was a certain kind of woman, and then saying that she’d rather be a feminist then not a feminist at all. I have poor reading comprehension and I’m kind of an idiot but I honestly found that excessively misleading–to the extent that it didn’t validate her point, if that makes any sense. She just went back and forth, arguing two sides, and not for the sake of conversation. The body of her article, I will say, I fundamentally disagree with. and for the following reason!
********femininity is not anti-feminist**********†
which is actually a fantastic segway into something I wrote in my notebook when I should’ve been in PE a while ago: Feminism, for me, is the act of dissociating femininity from traditional womanhood. That is, separating the feminine identity from being anatomically female. Femininity, and masculinity, for that matter, should be accessible to everyone, and if that should ever be the case, our society would be devoid of gender-based double standards, because gender would not have any associations. To clarify, it’s not a solution.
Femininity is not anti feminist because, if there weren’t gender based double standards, anybody could be feminine. Gay labels her feminine aspects as characteristics of a “bad feminist,” when really, the two should have no relationship. A feminist wants equality. Why can’t a feminist like the color pink?
Furthermore, she criticizes women for not using the term “feminist.” That’s a really valid criticism that I usually agree with because it points out how our culture perceives feminism, something that can be long lost on people who do consider themselves feminist. Marissa Mayer’s explanation of why she’s not a feminist is kind of like that analysis itself: “I think it’s too bad, but I do think feminism has become, in many ways, a more negative word.” Her criticism of Marina Abramovic, though, I disagree with. Marina doesn’t like labels in general, and furthermore says ze believes zir art is genderless. Lack of gender, I’ll remind you, is kind of what we’re striving for.
But, to end on a kind of melancholy note, Gay says she’s a feminist because being a bad feminist is better than not being one at all, which is really true. We have to appreciate that, given the associations that come with the term, it’s not easy for anyone to label themselves like that. Questioning what feminism is for us is important, but at the end of the day, feminism is about not questioning our own interests and opinions, and not comparing them to gender normative standards of femininity or masculinity.
Iris
†You can buy totes rad denim patches that say my mantra from a canadian with pink hair.
WEEVILS OF EVIL 