The reality is that hierarchies of gender, race, class, and more determine which voices are heard within the public sphere. Wallpapering over those power disparities with liberal thought does nothing to redress those imbalances, or help people find each other across differences. https://twitter.com/brainpicker/status/1200154128598519808

It’s great that Neil Gaiman wrote a poem. But framing this as inherently feminist, as Maria did in her original post, is frankly dubious. Centring male voices in feminist art and conversations only replicates patriarchal norms, where men’s voices are valued over women’s.

Neil’s writing is good enough that you don’t need to co-opt the label of feminist to advertise it. The very fact that he wrote it guarantees significant traction.

It would be legitimate (and far more honest) to say that Neil’s poem is being centred by @brainpicker because they share a cultural/literary community than to claim that his voice is feminist and, as a consequence, subversive.

What would be truly subversive is centring the voice of a female writer who doesn’t have a global following and colossal platform. White male writers are massively enabled by the status quo, which means they are (at least on some level) invested in upholding it.

Yes, I love Neil Gaiman’s writing. But I’m also conscious that cultural conditioning leads us to think of white male writers as the default - and therefore comfortable in a way that is the antithesis of subversion.

Unlearning cultural values tied to structural power imbalances is hard work. I’ve begun the process of decolonising my reading material, but still have a long way to go. It’s vital to question which voices we’re comfortable listening to - even on a subconscious level - and why.

Feminism is a social movement for the liberation of women and girls. Its purpose is to dismantle patriarchal power imbalances. Labelling men’s writing as feminist - when for centuries Male voices have been centred through the erasure and exclusion of women’s - is ludicrous.