Page 8 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 8
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
pass as the core of feminism down to generations of girls and young wom-
en. I am somewhat inclined to think that on closer inspection these forms
of “feminism” are not really feminist and might, as stated by Toril Moi
(2006, p. 1739),3 even further the conservative feminist-bashing agenda.
However, this approach (containing my afore-mentioned doubts), accord-
ing to Catharine Rottenberg, can also be problematic. For instance, it as-
sumes that feminism has a stable essence or universal foundation (admit-
tedly, that is not necessarily always so)4 and, as demonstrated several times
in the history of feminism, “any attempt to define feminism once and for
all or to police its borders, results in violent exclusions while often but-
tressing imperialist and racist projects” (Rottenberg, 2018, p. 169). This
was clearly elaborated in Chandra Mohanty’s work on the construction of
non-Western women as “an ahistorical, monolithic, and coherent group
or category” (Rottenberg, 2018, p. 170).
Hence, according to Catharine Rottenberg, simply “dismissing neo-
liberal feminism as ‘faux feminism’ reproduces a similar logic of exclusion”:
And while it is clear that this kind of dismissal stems from a political
desire to reclaim feminism for more progressive purposes, theoretically
it seems misguided. Indeed, if, on the one hand, we have witnessed the
increasing entanglement of feminism with a range of neoliberal and neo-
conservative and even right-wing issues across the globe, on the other
hand, this imbrication of feminism with non-emancipatory projects is a
powerful reminder that feminism has always been an unstable signifier
(Rottenberg, 2018, p. 170).
But still, one of the most important things to have in mind is: “the
current shift to ‘feminism is wonderful’, in the mainstream media /…/
de-politicizes feminism, making it less of a radical movement that seeks
social change and more a portrayal of individual empowerment on the
part of exceptional women. In essence, it seeks to separate the personal
from the political” (Caddell, 2015, p. ii). After years of general aversion
to feminism (either its endeavours or the term itself, or both), this shift
should of course be welcomed if it were not for its “rebranding” (and I
apologise for this marketing expression) which “relies on disavowing the
stereotype of the unattractive and sexless feminist” and/or on positioning
“outside the stuffy and dry feminism associated with academia” (Rivers,
2017, p. 66). In this way, feminism has been co-opted and depoliticised
3 Let me point out that the article by Moi was issued in 2006 when feminism was indeed
still the unspeakable F-word. Today (ab)uses of the word are far more common, albeit it
remains to be seen to what extent the general cultural image of feminism has changed.
4 Although I would still opt for “universal foundation”.
6
pass as the core of feminism down to generations of girls and young wom-
en. I am somewhat inclined to think that on closer inspection these forms
of “feminism” are not really feminist and might, as stated by Toril Moi
(2006, p. 1739),3 even further the conservative feminist-bashing agenda.
However, this approach (containing my afore-mentioned doubts), accord-
ing to Catharine Rottenberg, can also be problematic. For instance, it as-
sumes that feminism has a stable essence or universal foundation (admit-
tedly, that is not necessarily always so)4 and, as demonstrated several times
in the history of feminism, “any attempt to define feminism once and for
all or to police its borders, results in violent exclusions while often but-
tressing imperialist and racist projects” (Rottenberg, 2018, p. 169). This
was clearly elaborated in Chandra Mohanty’s work on the construction of
non-Western women as “an ahistorical, monolithic, and coherent group
or category” (Rottenberg, 2018, p. 170).
Hence, according to Catharine Rottenberg, simply “dismissing neo-
liberal feminism as ‘faux feminism’ reproduces a similar logic of exclusion”:
And while it is clear that this kind of dismissal stems from a political
desire to reclaim feminism for more progressive purposes, theoretically
it seems misguided. Indeed, if, on the one hand, we have witnessed the
increasing entanglement of feminism with a range of neoliberal and neo-
conservative and even right-wing issues across the globe, on the other
hand, this imbrication of feminism with non-emancipatory projects is a
powerful reminder that feminism has always been an unstable signifier
(Rottenberg, 2018, p. 170).
But still, one of the most important things to have in mind is: “the
current shift to ‘feminism is wonderful’, in the mainstream media /…/
de-politicizes feminism, making it less of a radical movement that seeks
social change and more a portrayal of individual empowerment on the
part of exceptional women. In essence, it seeks to separate the personal
from the political” (Caddell, 2015, p. ii). After years of general aversion
to feminism (either its endeavours or the term itself, or both), this shift
should of course be welcomed if it were not for its “rebranding” (and I
apologise for this marketing expression) which “relies on disavowing the
stereotype of the unattractive and sexless feminist” and/or on positioning
“outside the stuffy and dry feminism associated with academia” (Rivers,
2017, p. 66). In this way, feminism has been co-opted and depoliticised
3 Let me point out that the article by Moi was issued in 2006 when feminism was indeed
still the unspeakable F-word. Today (ab)uses of the word are far more common, albeit it
remains to be seen to what extent the general cultural image of feminism has changed.
4 Although I would still opt for “universal foundation”.
6
