Oct 10, 2014 09:45
Grumpy today. Annoyed by the motion that someone must be totally perfect in order for their ideas to be accepted. I can think of NO ONE with whom I agree on everything; if I demanded that I could never vote for anyone, listen to anyone, read anything. Wouldn't it be better to accept what we agree with, argue against what we don't, but not diss the person because they don't fit every category we want? [/soapbox]
The above was inspired by the criticisms I've been seeing of Emma Watson and her talk of feminism recently. Apparently because (a) she's a celebrity, and (b) her comments were not anything brand-spanking-new, it's fine to say "but this doesn't actually do anything for women's rights." Look, we've had various efforts to secure equal rights for women for centuries, and we still don't have them. I don't think it's helpful to criticize someone who supports feminism just because she's a celebrity and a young woman. She's doing what she can, and it's a lot better than doing nothing at all. Ditto Jennifer Laurence and Beyoncé and other public figures. We're just coming off a long stretch when many many women refused to describe themselves as feminists because, frankly, the feminist movement was defining itself in extremely circumscribed and exclusive ways, demanding a lot of ideological purity. That's not the way to succeed as a movement.
feminism