I’ve been mulling over this idea for a while now, ever since a coworker posted an article about being a “feminist killjoy” (guilty!) and my general sense of consternation and disappointment in feminist communities. In the past I’ve jokingly said I can focus on more than one thing wrong with sexism at once, but lately I’ve been feeling stretched out in too many directions, wondering where all the disconnects came from and what happened to genuine community.
There are many good reasons for a lack of solidarity and community within feminism. Trans women are understandably leery of the movement since TERFs poisoned the well with their dangerous rhetoric. Women of colour have often been excluded from, if not experienced downright hostility by, white feminism. (See the #solidarityisforwhitewomen tweets that @karnythia got rolling late this summer.) To many women, feminism has always been synonymous with white, middle class cis women.
I can’t remember a time where I didn’t personally identify as feminist. It’s possible part of it stemmed from the fact that I was (and still am) a contrary asshole, and I was surrounded by sexism, so rebelling against that became important to me. A lot of my fledgling feelings about women’s rights were crystallized through stuff like volunteering with Scarleteen in my young adult life.
But then in college, I remember picking up a feminist theology book, either edited or written by Mary Daly, and reading it in the tub one night after class. Before the water had even stopped steaming, I had to put it down, confused. Not only did it seem intellectually dishonest – reading aspects of modern feminism back into first century Palestine to the point of speculating the magi visiting baby Jesus might have actually been witches – but it was patently wrong in its examinations of gender and sexuality. (Mary Daly was quite well known for her vicious transphobia, as I later learned.) I didn’t like the idea of that being what people thought of when I said I was a feminist, and a theologian. Was Jesus a feminist? No! Would he be a feminist, if he lived today? Probably (or something similar.) For me, believing and studying the gospel made me feel that social justice is the only acceptable solution; not that social justice should be read backwards in order to rearrange the gospel to suit us.
I began to read more widely and found some really excellent stuff (Jess (Yee) Danforth’s Feminism for Real, for example, and Lauren Chief Elk, who’s currently getting well-deserved accolades for her letter to Eve Ensler). I also found a lot of feminist stuff that made me deeply uncomfortable – male feminist “allies” getting far more air time than the women who said it better before them; a trend towards making feminism fun, sexy and palatable; feminist narratives around choice that implied that… well, Lisa Simpson says it pretty good:
Now, I’m pretty sure that the line in the Simpsons is meant to be a rib at exactly that kind of thinking. Lisa Simpson, while totally amazing, is also only eight years old and she’s a great avatar therefore for subtly jabbing at misguided ideals. My biggest and most growing uncertainty about my role within feminism as a community lately has been centred mostly around issues of choice and individualism.
It’s important to remember that, historically speaking, concepts of individuality are relatively young. The Enlightenment was only a few hundred years ago, after all. It hasn’t been all bad; concepts of individual human rights isn’t something I’m ready to chuck out. For certain issues – like reproductive choice – the individual is the only person that matters. That’s the kind of thing, in my mind, “your freedom to do whatever you want ends where my body begins” as an ideal was meant for.
Now, forgive me, because this part is ticklish. But I’m finding myself more and more concerned with certain aspects of feminism where the individual choice is held paramount and therefore, because the individual is a feminist, the choices are therefore also feminist.
Last year, I had the honour of attending the Faculty of Celebrity Studies hosted by Elaine Lui. You can read the whole experience on my post about it, but a lot of the discourse from the audience was about how they had chosen to become stay at home moms, and how mean feminists were for criticizing their choices, and blah blah blah until I got all Mount St Helen and caused a scene.
Look, it should be obvious: can you be a stay at home mom, and a feminist? YES. Is being a stay at home mom a feminist choice? Well, for one – how do you define what a feminist choice is? But more importantly, is it even a choice, when it’s typically more practical for a two-income family that a woman stay at home because she earns less? Or that even today, we’re still primarily bombarded with messages of motherhood being the ultimate fulfilment of being a woman? (Having done some Christmas shopping for my niece recently, with massive difficulties in even finding gifts that weren’t kitchen or baby-doll related, I’d argue it’s even worse than when I was young!)
Or take a recent post at popular blog Shakesville, there’s a post against this article on high heels (which is admittedly, terrible in equating high heels to self-injury, and issues of consent, which redlightpolitics addresses in her storify on white feminists and consent.) This comes on the, pardon the expression, heels of the selfie conflict sparked by Jezebel, which created interesting dialogue about combating male gaze and controlling the photographic narrative.
But the argument that heels are an important feminist decision because they allow women to feel sexy and/or professional, particularly fat women, doesn’t sit right with me either. Can feminists wear heels? Yeah, for sure. Is it a way of spitting in the eye of the patriarchy? I don’t know. I don’t think so.
There shouldn’t be an argument that long-term use of heels, particularly high ones, or heels with narrow toes, do damage to your feet. There’s no question I’ve seen some seriously hyperbolic rhetoric out there comparing high heels to … idk, burkas and FGM. That’s bullshit. Spinning “to wear heels or not to wear heels” as an issue of feminist choice feels bad to me, on a few levels. One, it feels like we’re gilding the cage. Heels are necessary, it can be argued, to be seen as professional in the office. Yes. Similar to office dress code rules about cleavage, shaved legs, etc., if you don’t want to be the centre of a shitstorm, you suck it up and follow the code. I don’t feel comfortable spinning that damned if you do, damned if you don’t choice as a feminist act. We should openly acknowledge it as one of the series of concessions we make in our day to day lives in order to not be in combat 24/7.
I also want to acknowledge that for trans woman, this issue is wrapped up in much more troubling and dangerous narratives about femininity, passing and safety, and I want to be clear that I would never question any woman’s choice about clothing. Criticizing the practice, and the social history surrounding it is necessary to breaking down the restrictions, though.
There’s been a backlash lately against ironic racism, or ironic sexism, particularly in the comedy world. If you’re a member of the privileged class, making jokes that sound exactly like racism or sexism, and copping out of it by saying “But I’m not ACTUALLY a racist” is rightly mocked or called out. Whatever someone’s personal intent is, the audience at large can’t judge it’s truthfulness; only the surface. Similarly, when a woman wears heels or chooses to stay at home with her kids, there’s no way of knowing at first whether this is a conspicuous choice, or just going with the flow because that’s how life is, or a combination of both.
And so on, with sex positivity (sorry, I don’t find vagina-centred feminism very positive, or inclusive, Vagina Monologues)(Eve Ensler’s on everyone’s shit list today!), shaving/waxing/plucking, etc. etc.
Remember the Enlightenment, and me cursing it’s name? (Oh, I haven’t yet? Fuck you, Enlightenment. Eat a butt John Stuart Mill) Here’s where it’s getting me into deep shit. Criticizing the practices has become criticizing the individuals who have made that choice. Because you’re implying they’re too stupid to not know the societal constraints (They’re not, and I’m not). Or that you think someone can’t genuinely derive enjoyment from painting their nails or cleaning their house (patently untrue, though I will bemusedly welcome house-cleaning lovers to enjoy my poor cluttered basement if they’re bored).
It’s almost as if the meaning of “the personal is political” has been turned on its head to indicate that personal choices – no matter what they might be – are important political statements. This is only true if the important political people are recognizing that those personal choices are subversive (and again, in some cases, like abortion, they are!). But when your subversive choices look identical to patriarchal buy-in, then what? The argument then becomes “Well, why aren’t you fighting the patriarchy instead of other feminists?”
The move towards fun sexy feminism has alarmed me in a number of ways. One, we end up with a lot of gross male allies who realize that saying they’re feminist gets them laid. For another, we end up with vitally important concepts like consent being boiled down to “because it gets you laid (and also not charged with rape)”. Tied into that last link, we also get a bunch of corporate buy-in from Pantene and Dove marketing their beauty care products to women with mildly feminist messages or ideas, which feels alarmingly like point one, only with companies. Capitalism is anti-thesis to feminism. Shouldn’t we be skeptical?
The problem with skepticism is its lonely. The moment where you realize you’re a feminist killjoy and you lose all your friends is lonely. The moment where you realize you’re a feminism killjoy and you don’t even really fit into with a lot of feminist spaces is lonely. How do we build bridges? How do people participate in feminism when there are many avenues in which its gone that they don’t agree with, when critiques have become personal jabs rather than a plea to think critically? Is this navel-gazing tome of a blog entry just more of the same? Where do you fit?
Be the first to comment.