I am not a feminist. Can I say that? Well, I’m not. I’m an equal opportunist - I don’t burn bras or hate men. In fact, I like my breasts well supported and I enjoy hetero sex on a regular basis. I also don’t believe that there is anything inherently special about being a woman; we are not intimately bonded through our being female. I feel no sisterhood with strangers based on menstrual cramps and getting screwed over by boys.
Blasphemous? Perhaps. Or perhaps the book I just finished reading wasn’t targeted to someone like me. She’s Shameless, an anthology of short stories and anecdotes written by and for women about “growing up, rocking out and fighting back” is the latest project from the editors (Stacey-May Fowles and Megan Griffith-Greene) at Shameless magazine. As is often the case in a piece of collective literature, not all the stories are as awesome as the editors’ concept; everyone has a story worth telling, though as this book proves, not everybody has the ability to tell their stories well.
Luckily Jessica McGann, one of quirkier contributors, can tell stories with panache. Her short piece, delightfully titled “Vaginal Discharge” was one of the highlights of the book. If you’ve ever been an eleven-year-old girl, you’ll remember it perfectly, as McGann brings you back to that terrifying and awe-inspiring world of prepubescent innocence. If you’ve never been an eleven-year-old girl, read this story and you’ll understand exactly what it’s like. It’s the story of a girl as she discovers the moment when society tells her it’s not okay to be proud of her body.
It’s an endearing and surprisingly poignant piece. As she concludes her tale with the fact that “Vaginas are the elephant in the room,” McGann draws attention to one issue even a “non-feminist, man-loving, mature and boring woman” can appreciate. That for years our bodies are reveled for their appearance, but the vagina, inarguably the most sexual part of any female, is not one of those appreciated aspects. Beyond taboo, this organ is one of the only things still unmentionable in public. McGann finds power in her shameless reclamation of female genitalia.
Karma Waltonen’s piece “She Will Arrive” also bears mentioning. This poetic vignette expresses the worry of a young mother meeting her son’s “not girlfriend” for the first time. Again, this author breaks down any age barrier by connecting and reminiscing with a voice so clear you can’t help but feel exactly what the narrator is feeling.
The remaining 80% of the book consists mostly of stories about women who tried the frilly pink version of life, and then realized that they prefer being hardcore individuals that also happen to be lesbians. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, or that these stories are poorly written- it just gets monotonous after a while. And makes it seem as though I should feel guilty for enjoying a middle-class heterosexual lifestyle.
While the stories are sometimes a bit bland, the layout, the artwork (kudos to Sheila Sampath, graphic designer!) and the titles of the “chapters” are all great. With section titles like “Getting Grounded: Run-ins With Authority”, it clearly organizes the content and makes the book a little more relatable, serving as a reminder that She’s Shameless isn’t just aimed at struggling young lesbians.
While I’ve never been a “you go girl!” kind of girl, I can appreciate the idea of this anthology, even if I don’t love its content. It’s an easy read, and one that might be just the thing a 14 year old girl needs to get through the day. It’s nice to see feminist literature from someone a little younger (and more sane) than Margaret Atwood, even if I am shamelessly not a feminist.
11 Comments
1 Alicia wrote:
It's funny that you say you're not a feminist. Makes me wonder what you think a feminist is, actually. You see, I'm a proud feminist, but I don't burn bras or hate men. In fact, my beliefs seem to be summed up (though clumsily) by the same label you put to yourself: I'm an "equal opportunist".
If you think feminism requires being an angry lesbian with hairy armpits, you're just perpetuating an unhealthy (and mostly untrue) stereotype. Feminists today all are trying to do different kinds of things. There are post-feminists who are trying to take away the rights women have fought very hard for (voting, working, etc.). There are also second wave feminists, who like to think all problems boil down to men and how they oppress women - which seem to be the ones you're thinking of.
Personally, I subscribe to the label "third wave feminist", which means I think that (1) pretty much all labels (gender, sexuality, race) are constructed to put one group over others, and (2) that these labels are intersecting and need to all be dealt with to create an equal world. For example, for an Aboriginal lesbian woman, you can't say that sexism is the only thing working against her. There's also sexuality and race, as well as other factors that are equally important which can be used as a basis for discrimination.
Essentially, gender is not the only thing that needs to be dealt with. It still needs to be dealt with, though. The glass ceiling is still very much in place. Sexism is still a problem. Sexual assault and violence is still a problem, for women and men. Anyone who doubts that isn't paying attention.
Anyway, my point is that from your very vague description of yourself, you seem to be a feminist of some sort. One could even argue that by working, voting, going to school, etc. you are already a feminist because you're refusing to bend to gender stereotypes.
Something to think about.
2 Cassandra Sivic wrote:
I think the term "feminist" is limiting and alienating. I'm a strong independent lesbian woman, but I'd never call myself a feminist because I don't feel like I have to identify myself with a group. FUCK LABELS! Why does every strong woman somehow have to be termed "feminist"? If third wave feminism acknowledges that labels create hierarchy, why not drop the labels all together and start being human.
I am not a feminist either, Sarah. Oh yeah, and the books sounds cool too.
3 B-Rad wrote:
Can I post here? Like, is it allowed even though I have a penis? (Lol).
The issue of labels ad the perpetual cultural image/stereotype of said label is something..well.. that is problematic. I consider myself an advocate of equality, regardless of our differences (meaning I think everyone is equal despite their religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc). In that respect, you could call me a feminist as well, however many feminists (mostly second wavers at that) don't like it when men label themselves as feminists.
Why?
Why can't I advocate equal human rights for men, women, and everything in between?And why do (some) feminists get angry when men do this? I think its because of how identity politics has developed in the past 25-20 years. The socioeconomic need for minority groups to have equal representation led many social movements to advocate self-representation (meaning only blacks and represent and tell the stories of black people, only women have the right to speak of women...etc). All that was necessary, I think in a historical context, yet as we approach the last years of the first decade of the 21st century, we are seeing a need to move beyond the 'right to representation' and identity politics (that's not to say that these struggles are not important, on the contrary, it just means we need to change how we go about advocating them).
Good article Sarah, I enjoyed it!
Ok...I'm done with my rant..
4 Patrick Grant wrote:
I think the problem therein, Cassandra, is that some labels are rooted in the physical reality of our bodies and social context, whether we acknowledge them or not. You said it yourself, you're a "strong independent lesbian woman." Aren't these all labels? We cannot escape the language that defines us without abandoning communication altogether. What's important is not the dropping of labels, it's the making sense of their implications and motivations and helping each other to move beyond the concept that who we ARE should affect what we can and cannot DO.
5 Sarah wrote:
Alicia, you're right- as a woman of the (post)modern age, as a person with beliefs that encompass the equality and well-being of all people (regardless of gender, race, sexuality, or any innumerable categories we use to explain ourselves) I am experiencing and advocating the benefits the feminist movement gave us. But that doens't mean I have to subscribe to the label.
In fact, I think the folks behind "She's Shameless" might remind you that you don't have to "subscribe" to any label...
You want to talk about sexism and gender issues still being prevalent? You don't need to tell me twice- quite frankly it doens't have anything to do with any wave of feminism nowadays. Want a real thought provoking read on gender identity and labels? Pick up Judith Halberstam's 'Female Masculinity" and get back to me. Or look back on Thomas' Beatie's story that hit the media in 2008. No one seemed able to digest the concept of a pregnant man, talk about label issues! The perceived need to categorize ourselves is perpetual and unfortunate, with arguments that go well beyond the realm of basic feminism.
Of course, 'She's Shameless' wasn't really about labels, but was for exactly this purpose of sparking conversation, creating a community where it is safe to discuss issues that are either ignored or written off as unmentionable... I appreciate the dialogue- it's good to know we're keeping people on their toes!
6 Alicia wrote:
I understand the idea of cringing when someone tries to label you, but I'm still unclear why "feminist" is one such label that so many people seem to be afraid of. I don't mean to put either Sarah or Cassandra on the spot, but it is something I find myself unable to make sense of.
From my experiences it seems that many males and females today think that all feminists are are angry man-haters (and all women). Because this is not really a fair or relevant idea of feminism, I think it's important to inform people of how personal versions of feminism can be different from what the majority of people may perceive them to be.
I think a major danger is that many people think feminism is dead and unnecessary - as in we all are equal, everyone get over yourselves. That's quite simply not true, as Sarah and others pointed out. But how are you supposed to fight prejudices that the majority of people won't acknowledge are even there?
This is why I feel it's important to still use the term "feminist" and identify with that group if your interest lies in changing things. There is often safety and a common understanding in a group, and you can definitely do more with a group - faster - than you can by yourself. Of course we don't live in a utopia, so not everyone's ideas will be the same and not everyone will get along. But that group of people who identify similarly has a solid foundation to build upon.
I may not understand the feminist stigma, but I do think that whether you identify as feminist or not, it's important to acknowledge that things are not all black and white in feminism (or pretty much anything). There are many, many shades of gray.
7 Alicia wrote:
I should probably just state the (hopefully) obvious, which is I have absolutely no stake in what anyone labels themselves. I was just trying to explain why I myself take on the label of "feminist" - although to be more specific I prefer "third wave feminist" - and share my (confused) thoughts on the stigma around feminism today.
8 B-Rad wrote:
Alicia,
The question of how we are to fight social injustices and inequalities (such as sexism) if we don't have a concrete foundation (i.e. feminism) is an important thing to draw attention to. What can be done, if some are feeling that labels are problematic?
I think that we have reached a pint in our history where certain social movements (i.e. feminism, Marxism, anti-racist movements, gay activists, etc) have themselves been assimilated into the dominant culture and are now being perpetually reproduced. As such, there are now cliched images of 'The man-hating, angry Feminist', and the 'Angry, slightly pathetic image of the revolutionary screaming 'REVOLT' just to name two. Point being, it is not that these issues of race, gender and equality do not matter anymore (nothing further could be from the point), but its that those who want to promote human equality need to understand when their own culturally produced image is working against their goals. Let me give a quick example:
I consider myself a Marxist (a tradition, which has its many problems). I still have a fidelity to the notion of a communism society where everyone is equal, however I am also well aware of how much of a turn off the image of the "Angry, brash, 'revolutionary'" has become. The many Leftists at York University which label themselves as Socialists are only alienating students when they scream "REVOLUTION!!!" at the top of their lungs. Why? Because they are merely adhering and perpetuating the stereotype of the 'revolutionary', and as such they are damaging their own cause.
The same logic applies to feminists today. If, as a feminist, you reduce everything down to men/women politics and how the patriarchal white man has been oppressing women- it isn't going to win over anyone who is not already a feminist. What you can do, is become aware of this cultural stigma that surrounds labels such as feminism, and be conscious of how and when/where they work against the struggle for equality between men and women. This means changing the way others think and perceive feminists (which by proxy means being aware of how the cultural image of feminists are produced and circulate through culture via media, etc).
So, are labels a bad thing? No. But it is important to acknowledge when getting stuck on labels start to endanger the social movements which strive for equality, whether it be feminism, Marxism or what have you.
9 Mark wrote:
feminists are not defined by burning bras or hating men. nor are they against supportive bras or heterosexual sex. feminism is inclusive although it does draw the line at patriarchy i belive.
please look beyond the stereotype of feminists. maybe sarah you have not met feminiss who are not defined by such stereotypes. is that the case? i'm really asking.
and why does it have to be targeted toward you. as a heterosexual, aren't most things targeted toward you?
10 Sarah wrote:
No Mark, of course they are not. Feminists are not defined by anything other than what they choose, which more often than not is a belief in equality (political, economic, social or otherwise). I am not approaching this topic (or this anthology) as an uneducated person, nor am I ignorant about the strength of the comments I have made and the social implications they hold.
But instead of looking beyond the stereotypes I choose to look at them. I haven't written this article as a means to degrade anyone or in fight against feminism. I have met many people (men and women alike) who identify as feminists, who clearly do not fall into this very broad and possibly offensive stereotype I have mentioned. But believing in the strong minds of my readers, I didn't feel the need to censor my work, because I assume you're smart people who know and understand the basics of social politics. Consider it playing devil's advocate- yes, we all know most feminists aren't radicals hellbent on making men miserable and destroying lingerie. There comes a time when people are educated enough and movement has made enough progress that it is no longer fragile enough to be ruined by a cheeky comment. I am not the first to make a joke about feminism.
And Mark, I never said the book had to be targeted towards me, in fact I mentioned that I liked and appreciated the book even though I was clearly not it's ideal audience. My sexuality actually has nothing to do with the literature I read.
11 Jessica McGann wrote:
Well, thank you!
One Trackback