May
04
Tags
Writing as a Feminist by Mariko Tamaki
There’s something about talking about writing and feminism that turns me into a downer.
I should make clear that I am a big fan of questions about feminism in relation to writing and to the making of any kind of culture, because I am, without a doubt, a feminist writer. Purposefully so. I am also, a totally legit MASTER in Women’s Studies (whut whuuuut!), with a degree and everything, care of York University. Questions about feminism are often my only chance to bring that up.
This means that, when I write, I am distantly informed years of study of Betty Friedan, bell hooks, and the lesser known Deborah Cameron and Penelope Eckert (look ‘em up) and, of course, I am informed by my very feminist friends.
But in terms of how to answer the question of “how” I do it, the answer, as I said, tends to sound very negative.
Writing as a feminist:
I try not to reinforce stereotypes about what women should look like or sound like
I try not to write about characters that are white and straight by default
I try to not just avoid but negate traditional narratives, which I tend to think of in terms of Archie and Jughead cartoons, where the girl’s only storyline has to do with the pursuit of a boy, where there are only two type of girls, Betties and Veronicas (who are really just the same girl with different hairstyles).
Sometimes, when I talk about writing and feminism, I mention the Alison Bechdel test, a test devised by a character in one of Bechdel’s comics (and thereby to some degree Bechdel herself) where a movie must past the following three standards:
1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it. 2. Who talk to each other. 3. About something besides a man
This is a more a standard of judging the mass of pop culture than it is a standard for writing, but I bring it up because it sets the tone for the importance of writing from a feminist place, which is a place informed by the massive percentage of pop culture that doesn’t pass this, bare minimum, standard.
That said, writing from a feminist perspective isn’t just about writing against something. It’s as much about inspiration, about goals, as it is about avoiding something negative.
Writing as a feminist it’s my goal to try, whenever possible, to unpack , girls’ and women’s experiences and struggles with the complex identities that are “girl” and “women.” To show how women define these things not just for themselves but for each other.
Writing about women (like writing about any human creature) is about writing out and looking at the relationships between women, between mothers and daughters and friends. Because, and bear with me while I have a Gender Studies moment here, as Foucault says, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.”
(Did I mention I’m a Women’s Studies Master? Yes. Ok.)
And the thing about all this is, that is a joy to do. It is anything but a downer. I love thinking about these stories as much as I love telling them. I love listening to the way girls and women talk to each other and calling it research. It is a great job.
That’s what I want to say as part of my answer here from now on. I’m going to start here.
What’s it like to write from a feminist perspective?
Awesome.
Mariko Tamaki is a Canadian writer and performer. In addition to her celebrated graphic novel Skim, co-created with Jillian Tamaki, she has also published several works of prose fiction and nonfiction, including the young adult novel (You) Set Me on Fire. Mariko’s short film Happy 16th birthday Kevin premiered at the Inside Out Festival in Toronto in May 2013. Her most recent graphic novel is This One Summer, with Jillian Tamaki. You can find her online at marikotamaki.blogspot.com.
Nerdy Book Club is just the first stop on the This One Summer blog tour. Click on the image above to see where else they will be posting!
Do you find that your perceptual filter of “feminism” enhances your sensitivity to the elements of life that fall within the domain of that filter, or do you find yourself limited to an exploration of only that which is deemed to be of value within the “feminist” interpretive framework?
thanks for this.
i really appreciate your dipping into your theoretical/academic framework, but keeping your explanation grounded in real-speak.
about defining what you do in terms of “not”s: you’re right that “not” sounds “negative”. but what you wrote was really more akin to modeling or sculpting with clay — using a subtractive technique instead of an additive one. which makes sense: you cut all the junky stuff out and you are stil left with a big lump of clay that there is SO much you can do with! which doesn’t seem negative at all, really. just practical.
Pingback: 2014 NERDY AWARDS FOR GRAPHIC NOVELS BY KATHERINE SOKOLOWSKI | Nerdy Book Club