The Poethical Wager Response

            Reading The Poethical Wager, Joan Retallack makes a variety of interesting points about the artificial binaries that tend to exist within the genres of today.  While these binaries come up in most of the essays, the one that I found interesting was the binary she explains as existing in feminism, starting on page 90.  The first thing she does is explain that the way she sees it, when comparing the feminine and the masculine, the feminine simply encompasses all of the things that the masculine does not, and that the problems feminism faces today are derived from this problematic distinction. 

            Secondly, she seems to draw a connection that since the experimental in art today is seen as an “other,” that these experiments are lumped into the feminine sphere since that sphere happens to encompass all “others” that aren’t part of the patriarchal masculine sphere.  So, as a result of the rejection of “others” from the dominant patriarchal sphere, not only do things seen as feminine suffer, but all others suffer, and are lumped in together as being feminine even if that definition doesn’t make sense, since there is so little information on what really makes something feminine in the first place. 

            Personally, I must admit that I can understand where she is coming from.  There really is a degree to which when something is rejected as not being masculine, a whole host of other traits are thrown upon it.  That said, I’m unsure if all experimental art is rejected by society because it is seen as feminine.  I say this because I feel that as feminism slowly continues to grow stringer and make more of an impact on mainstream society, I feel like experimental art will continue to be rejected just as it always has.  If we reach a point at which something being considered as feminine could be seen as something instead of a negative trait, won’t experimental art continue to be rejected?  In fact, couldn’t experimental art simply shift from one incorrect grouping to another?  For example, perhaps the experimental art of the future would be seen as anti-capitalist, rather than anti masculine.  While I understand that the connection between feminine and experimental exists, I am unsure of exactly how much of this connection is based in real concrete similarities.  It seems more like a connection society draws as a result of convenience, given the current similarities they share. 

            Overall, it is a very interesting way to look at how definitions shift over time.  It has definitely caused me to wonder how feminism will change as it continues to grow stronger.  The essay also makes it incredibly obvious how obsolete binaries are as way of viewing the world.  If feminine and masculine were viewed not as one being good and the other being bad, but as simply each being unique in its own way, then neither would have to be associated with “others” that they are in no other way related to.