I think all three of these articles highlight a very important issue facing most feminists: how confusing it is to be a feminist, and keep up with activism of any kind.
As an ethos, feminism’s tenants are relatively clear. But in application, those are increasingly complicated and hard to navigate, especially in times where it’s hard and thorny to navigate politics, consumerism, racial and gender identities of any kind. Part of the growing pains outlined in the articles are that of the late 20th and early 21st century clashing feminism ideals: Jess Butler on how postfeminism positions “women as both subjects and consumers,” how quickly requiring “women ‘be who they want to be’” became an argument against feminism, and how postfeminism and third-wave feminism overlap just enough to make the whole thing potentially fraught to newbies to the movement. Sarah Banet-Weiser noting how second-wave feminism can be overly romanticized, leaving “issues with cultural territory” and has led to feminism’s easy co-option.
Interestingly, I think these ideas are something that television is grappling with these ideas more than they were in the past. In the ‘90s it wasn’t uncommon for a woman on a sitcom who identified as a feminist to be seen as a punchline, often wearing stereotypically “activist” or “artsy” clothes, and often white. Even as feminism started to get more accepted in the aughts, it was still relatively common for someone to espouse the views of feminism, but still declare themselves “not a feminist or anything” because the word carried too much antiquated baggage.
Within the 2010s, we have seen more steps towards wholeheartedly embracing feminism, even if it is still operating as a non-linear, non-monolithic, movement where the participants don’t always agree on the best course of action. Beyoncé stood boldly in front of the word at the VMAs in 2014, helping to shift the dialogue for younger viewers and artists. Shows like The Bold Type, Shrill, Insecure, The Handmaid’s Tale, and Supergirl may sometimes seem a little Feminism 101 in their politics. But they also serve as an entry point that actively tackles what it means to be “feminist” in this time, with all the nooks and crannies within that. More importantly, viewers and critics are often discussing what it means to have art that is perceived as feminist*, and how that affects our viewing of it. Though it looks less like what we traditionally expect of an activist movement, it remains an area that people are engaging with, I think on a level that transcends much of what these articles fear with their discussion of the “postfeminist” movement.
*A critical piece to read, I think: https://theoutline.com/post/293/calling-a-tv-show-feminist-doesn-t-make-it-feminist?zd=3&zi=bnveyzlq
I am thinking about the power behind the act of enunciation – which can take many forms. Either the ‘90s sitcom which sees feminism as a punchline or contemporary shows which serve as “a little Feminism 101 in their politics” is concerned with voice and speech, which often lead to self-cognition and self-affirmation (although there's also a risk of self-doubt and self-denial) without standardization and unification. This iterative process of enunciation in television shows may engender and constitute complex practices of identity formation and community building that exceeds those consolidated by direct-action politics or activism.
ReplyDelete