The ostensibly feminist blog Jezebel published two articles last month on two powerful women who don't identify as feminist: Marissa Mayer, Yahoo's new CEO and performance artist Marina Abramovic.
And I'm like, "eh."
Before I'm declared a traitor to the sisterhood, or worse, I should note that the reasons they give for eschewing the F-word are the same ones that play into some tired old tropes about women and feminism. In Mayer's case she doesn't want to be seen as having that sort of "militant drive," and a "chip on her shoulder," while Abramovic just wants to be seen as an artist first. Why am I not bothered by this? Although referring to feminists as militant (some are, most aren't) plays into the hands of Rush Limbaugh-types who think feminism is just something for ugly, bitter women, I'm more interested in what women do than how they choose to identify. Plus claiming a feminist label in a corporate environment isn't maybe the smartest career move. I get it, but it makes it harder to have a discussion about women whose reasons for rejecting a feminist identity go beyond, "Um, hairy legs and stuff."
What does bother me is how this narrative plays out in the feminist blogosphere. Plenty of women activists choose not to identify as feminists because feminism has, historically, done a crappy job of addressing the needs of all women, not just the cis, straight, middle-class, able-bodied, white ones. This is a completely valid reason for refusing a feminist identity, I just wish blogs like Jezebel and their ilk talked about those women.
I'm here via Feministe. I agree that both the corporate atmosphere and the not so well-done inclusion of all women in the feminist narrative complicate people labeling themselves that way.
ReplyDeleteI also think that a lot of the work of feminism is done in a very theoretical, academic sphere (which is work that needs to be done, no doubt). But sometimes the theory doesn't match up as perfectly with the practice, and then we start to split hairs over whether someone is acting feminist "enough." I can see why that would be daunting, and I think you're right that we should focus on how people act rather than what they call themselves. If they're helping break down barriers to oppression, well, that's good.
I have a big problem with feminism operating almost exclusively in the academic world. For one thing, it shuts out a lot of women. Plus we don't live inside a woman's studies course, so it's incredibly frustrating to see real-life sexism, and not have the tools with which to handle it.
DeleteYou know how to use the word myriad! <3
ReplyDeleteI do get tired of the "I'm no a feminist" response from some women. Have we allowed those outside the movement to characterize what feminism is? After all these years, have we really done that poor a job of marketing? Maybe so.
I get tired of it too, but I listen to those women for whom feminism has failed. It's not really a job of marketing feminism as much as its defacto leaders being mostly young, white, middle-class cis women.
Delete