Feminism: A Topic Of Ambiguity
As a child, one is often told to be something or someone they aren’t. As a child, one is often coaxed into being scared to express who they are. As a child, one is often brought into the world only to fear it. Whether it’s the fear of being racist, the fear of being homosexual, the fear of being “bad,” the fear of being a minority, the fear of being a man or woman, or the fear of being feminist, the world has it all wrong.
The word “feminist” is inherently negative and polarizing by societal standards, though, two women, Roxane Gay and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, see past this misconception in their works “Bad Feminist” and “We should all be Feminists” — respectively — to shed light on the power of advocating against gender inequality in contemporary society and beyond. Although “We Should All be Feminists” focuses on interpreting the word “feminist” through Adichie’s concrete, personal anecdotes and “Bad Feminist” focuses on Gay’s struggles of being a woman — and what it’s like to be a “bad feminist” — both texts place an emphasis on the thought that feminism is entirely contextual: it isn’t standardized, and thus should be left up to interpretation. In “We Should All be Feminists,” looking beyond a single view of feminism is illustrated through Adichie’s descriptions of equality, and her personal experiences — both good and bad — of identifying herself as a “feminist.”
Meanwhile, the concept of looking at feminism differently is emphasized in “Bad Feminist” through Gay’s personal reflections on times of desperation or inherent inequality — and her descriptions of “bad” and “good” feminists. Together, both texts illustrate the importance of seeing beyond gender stereotypes, balancing the weight of social burdens, and being oneself regardless of misconstrued, societal views. The purpose of “We Should All be Feminists” is to interpret the world with open eyes and an open heart. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, an African-American woman and writer, is a feminist, a non-conformist, and an egalitarian. Right off the bat, Adichie calls herself a “happy feminist”, implying that not all feminists are the same. In her case, she takes the cynicism associated with the word “feminist” and throws it away, so to speak, to illustrate the need for one to challenge the constraints of social barriers — or social inconsistencies. By doing this, Adichie not only establishes comfortability with her being a feminist, but takes something so fundamentally plagued by social conflict and turns it upside down to demonstrate how firmly grounded and content she is with taking on said role. Furthermore, Adichie wishes to break the stereotype that only women can be feminists by calling her brother “the best feminist”.
Many people often ascribe feminism to women though feminism is a broad, interpretive ideology. Adichie’s brother doesn’t need to be feminine, masculine, homosexual, heterosexual, or anything else to be a feminist. Because, being a feminist is: to be inclusive, to see the world as something other than black and white. Everything the world chooses to interpret is often clouded by the judgment of society, the inconsistencies of social injustice, the inequality of stereotypes — but it is one’s own interpretation that truly matters. In “Bad Feminist,” feminism is not seen in black and white, but rather through the vibrant and colorful eyes of Gay — to challenge the social strife associated with identifying oneself as a feminist. Roxane Gay, an African-American woman and writer, is a bad feminist, a conformist, but still an egalitarian. In the beginning of her essay, Gay makes the assertion that there is tension between “the right way to be a woman, and [the] right way to be the most essential woman”. This “womanly” tension develops from social strife and social desirability, which makes it difficult to identify as something contradictory to the status quo — like, per se, a feminist. And much to Gay’s belief, feminism is divided into multiple parts, each with societal consequences attached — like Adichie is trying to emphasize in her essay — that further perpetuate this ideological crisis. Though, sometimes it is integral that one looks past said consequences.
Furthermore, Gay drags herself down as a feminist to emphasize the importance of doing “more,” that that social desire to be one thing makes it so difficult to be a “good” feminist. She juxtaposes “pink is my favorite color” and “I know nothing about cars” with “I very much like men” and the “idea of sisterhood menaces me”, to illustrate her own personal struggle for accepting herself as a feminist. By doing this, she exposes herself, leaving the reader with a picture of her vulnerability and substantiality — her acceptance of falling short — whatever that may be. Being a feminist is not easy. There are numerous interpretations of the word, and regardless of whether one is good or bad at being a feminist, there is still something to learn from acting, engaging, and understanding feminism.
Although both texts provide a fresh outlook on feminism and gender disparity, their true value lies in their connections to the real world — whether through references to pop culture or personal experience — and to each other. Each text is written by authors of comparatively different outlooks on life and feminism, and yet they still manage to establish a sense of unification, acceptance, and equality. Unification in the sense that feminism is not a term meant to compel or incentivize women to perpetuate their bombastic or unreasonable views to the public — to disparage the opposite sex — but rather to include everyone, both male and female, in the struggle for gender equality. Acceptance in the sense that not everyone is necessarily a “good” feminist, that it is okay to take risks, to have beliefs, and to be oneself. Equality in the sense that regardless of whether one is rich or poor, gay or straight, black or white, male or female, that everyone has an obligation to one other, to empower the world through their thoughts and actions — to find a voice.
Gender disparity, although a topical issue, remains unresolved. Time goes on and the way in which people see the world and each other changes — but the change is only gradual. Sometimes, looking through the eyes of someone else allows one to see the depth of something, to grasp it. And much like Adichie and Gay would want readers to believe, seeing through said eyes is meaningless unless the viewer is able to see beyond. As such, society, though complex and diverse, is flawed. Our differences — whether we want to believe it or not — are the key to understanding our similarities, not the other way around.
