On writers, contemporary culture and the eye that judges — still patriarchy
A recent controversy involving Michele Mari, writer and Premio Strega finalist, made us reflect on a broader question: what does feminism today actually mean? Is it true liberation, or oftentimes patriarchy repackaged by women — or even fully digested — by women theselves?
The debate began after remarks attributed to Mari about Michela Murgia — the acclaimed Italian writer, Campiello Prize winner, unapologetic feminist, queer icon, and fierce critic of patriarchy.
He reportedly said:
“She was intransigent and violent because she was ugly — that was her way of letting out her rage.”
“Through her aggressive behaviour, she made everyone else pay for her ugliness.”
“Every woman who is unhappy and unloved turns spiteful.”
Mari has since disputed parts of the reporting, but the controversy itself reveals something worth examining. How quickly we still use a woman’s appearance to explain her ideas, her anger, or her public presence.
Of course, it’s a comment you wouldn’t expect from a writer of his calibre. Let alone a candidate for the prestigious Premio Strega.
If culture and literary prestige cannot dismantle patriarchal thinking, then what can?
Our instinctive reaction is this: if the dominant aesthetic appeals to the male eye almost more than to the female one, we wouldn’t call that feminism.
That may sound provocative, but it touches on a central question in contemporary feminist thought. Feminism is not about conforming to patriarchal standards in order to gain visibility, approval, or power. It is about questioning those standards in the first place.
What does feminism today mean?
One of the defining questions of feminism today is whether women are becoming genuinely freer, or simply learning to navigate old power structures more successfully.
When we still discuss a woman’s value through the lens of attractiveness, desirability, or likability, the underlying hierarchy has not disappeared. It has merely changed its language.
Exposing false emancipation
An idea, or aesthetic, or even a form of empowerment, does not become subversive simply because women embrace it. Especially when, oddly enough, it remains more pleasing to the male gaze. That is not liberation; it is repackaging.
There is only a renegotiation of patriarchy.
Some scholars describe this phenomenon as “pop feminism” or commercial “post-feminism”: a version of empowerment that appears liberating while leaving existing power structures largely intact.
It sells — and its commercial success is often mistaken for social progress. We should also question who pulls the threads of that commercial success and market demands.
The theory of the male gaze
The controversy also recalls the work of feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey.
If the ultimate criterion of approval remains the male gaze, then men remain the subjects of the story while women remain its objects. Even when women believe they are acting freely and autonomously.
The question is not whether women make choices. The question is: who taught us what is desirable, acceptable, and worthy of admiration?
Distinguish feminism from performed femininity
Authentic feminism does not ask women to be pleasing to anyone but themselves.
Nor does it require them to conform to a prescribed ideal of beauty in order to be accepted into positions of influence, authority, or cultural legitimacy.
A woman should not need to be attractive in order to be heard, any more than she should need to be agreeable in order to be respected.
Final thoughts
Perhaps the most important distinction is this: feminism is not about giving women the same tools to compete in men’s games. It is about changing the rules of the game altogether.
That is why controversies such as this one matter. They remind us that, despite decades of progress, we still invoke a woman’s appearance to explain her character, her success, her failures, or even her convictions.
When that happens, we are forced to ask what feminism today really means.
If women are still judged through the lens of attractiveness, desirability, or conformity to a dominant aesthetic, then the rules of the game have not changed nearly as much as we like to believe.
The dominant gaze has simply become harder to recognise.
And if the final judgement still rests there, then it is not liberation.
It is merely a gilded cage.