Tracie Bernardi  10/28/17

A Paper Dept. of Political Science

“Around the table a family a family gathers. Always we are seated in the same place: my father one end, myself the other, my two sisters to one side and my mother to the other.” (Ahmed, p.1)

In recognizing the disparity in the family set up, concerning the arrangement at the family dinner table, one might be compelled to speak up and or out against the “Problematic” (Ahmad, p.1) component which is the inequality.

According to Sarah Ahmad in her piece, Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects) feminism is connected to unhappiness because once one notes the oppression that is perpetuated at the family table, one is compelled to address this injustice. In addressing something, “problematic” (Ahmad, p.1) one runs the risk of becoming the “dissident” (Ahmed, p.3) or person who has been “unseated” (Ahmed, p. 3) from the table.

Ahmed says, “The family gathers around the table; these are supposed to be happy occasions. How hard we work to keep the occasion happy, to keep the surface of the table polished so that it can reflect back a good image of the family.” (Ahmad, p.2)

Now the table is set with its collective goal and should anyone disrupt it by speaking up or out at the family table it would be a sign of disrespect. The father is not only the patriarch but he is the person who’s holds the head seat, historically he is in charge.

On the other hand, the woman being seated at the man’s side, (rather than in an end seat) denotes a sense of second-ism.  Due to the injustice of this age-old family inequality, a woman who speaks up separate’s herself further from the table.  This type of self-advocacy is discouraged and does not promote initial happiness.

When one upsets the table according to Ahmed, “they become alienated from (the) picture” (Ahmed, p.2) which Ahmad explains offers one a new perspective, one that lets one see, “what the table does and does not reflect.” (Ahmed, p.3 ) However, this is a necessary step happiness is not always a good thing because if you were happy with the situation in the way it was, then essentially you are agreeing to be oppressed.

Furthermore, the conversation or the happenings around the table are managed in order to preserve the man’s happiness but at the women’s expense. The woman is supposed to be content in this but the discontentment comes at the realization of the inequality. When the woman realizes how happy she actually is supposed to be compared to how happy she really is. She realizes that there’s a pretty of discrepancies and this in itself is what causes her to be unhappy. By removing herself from the table with her words and thoughts, she disrupts the table. But the table must be disrupted in order to gain eventual equality.  You become the, “figure of the feminist killjoy” (Ahmed, p.3) By speaking up, you give “voice” to the killjoy” (Ahmad, p.3)    Because you no longer chose to partake in the pretentious familial harmony, you jeopardize the sanctity of the table.

Not only are losing your own seat but the other people might also lose their seats if the father is made to be unhappy. All parties who “gather” (Ahmad, p.3) around the table grow pissed at you, wanting you to shut up and stop being a “kill joy”. (Ahmad, p.3)
By “becoming a feminist” (Ahmed, p3) and advocating for your proper position, you become ” the problematic”(Ahmed, P.1 ) one, thus by exile you become disappointed in the reality of the table, therefore unhappy. Ahmed says, “Our activist achieves are thus unhappy archives. Just think of the labor of critique that is behind us…” Recognizing that, “Going against a social order, which is protected as a moral order.” (Ahmed, p.3) will be an uphill battle. While happiness seems to be the long-term goal, there is discontentment during the struggle itself.