"How is it feminist? Because a woman made it"

Those are words from an art history professor I had a year ago talking about the feminist work of Sherrie Levine.

Duchamp's Fountain casted in Bronze by Sherrie Levine
I cannot say that I am a huge fan of Sherrie Levine's work, but that isn't so important so much as another common, unfounded art historical insofacto comment, which when it is observed makes little if any sense as a Universal.
A woman taking any sort of position is in a patriarchy is not in and of itself feminist. In this particular example with the artist Sherrie Levine, making an object in a male dominated art world is not inherently feminist. Certainly we could argue that the piece is feminist--in fact evidence supports this. But that does not mean it a woman making it automatically makes it feminist in any shape way or form, or at the very least, I don't find its position to be so easily and quickly understood as feminist.
Let's put the art world aside and instead enter the political sphere. If we see a woman protesting the new restrictions on abortion outside of the White House, we would probably think (correctly) that she is a feminist. For sake of argument, the protests result in the new restrictions being removed. The day after the new restrictions have been removed, we see still people protesting! But instead of signs demanding restrictions being removed, the signs dictate that abortion should be completely illegal! The majority of them are women, and they are taking a stance in a patriarchy. Does that make them feminists?

I hate to make, "most people would say" statements, but here we go: most people I believe would not consider these women feminists, eventhough they are standing up for a cause they believe in in a patriarchy. Perhaps some of the individuals from the first protest (pro-choice folk), reacting against the new restrictions, respond that the second protesters (pro-life) are simply acting within the boundaries of what it is to be a woman in a patriarchy. One might quickly dismiss this only because it assumes that one's position on abortion determines whether or not one acts within or outside of a "woman's role." The arguements continue on.

But it does not matter. Already, a distinction has been made between the act of taking a stance and the content of a stance, simply by creating the duality of "woman against patriarchy" vs. "woman unknowingly conforming to patriarchy." To base who fits in what category solely upon a single factor seems ridiculous, therefore the issue is not "against patriarchy" vs "conforming to patriarchy," so much as what these individuals are saying. Being an (politically, artistically, etc) active woman, does not necessitate a feminist stance.