“Feminist”, “Womanist”, “Humanist”, and many more, names all used for the confusing theme of “being equal”. Lately, there have been multiple articles about tv shows, political figures and more that have been debating the feminist aspect of them.
The newly released, book adapted, tv show, The Handmaid’s Tale, is the center of a debate. Though I am not too far into the book and I haven’t yet seen the tv show, I can tell that it’s a story of a woman and her struggles on how she became who she is now. Some audience members watching have deemed it as feminist. And on the other hand, the cast members have called it more of a “humanist” show, where it’s all about women’s rights being human rights. One cast member, Madeline Brewer told Vanity Fair, that in today’s day and age, people just throw the label of “feminist” onto anything that has a strong female lead in it. Brewer also says that “it’s just a story about a woman. I don’t think that this is any sort of feminist propaganda. I think that it’s a story about women and about humans. . . This story affects all people.” But, the thing is that if a story is depicting a powerful female presence, it earns its stripes and the availability to call itself a feminist storyline. Though the story is telling the life of a woman with other humans in the story, it still focuses on a woman and is told in her point of view (at least the beginning of the book is), it should be deemed as feminist because that’s what it’s all about, making women’s presence just as abundant as a male’s. Now, I don’t think calling it a “humanist” show is definitely wrong or wrong in my moral perspective; I just think that the more relevant and empowering word to use is “feminist”. Humanists value humanism which is when someone believes in general human equality. Merriam Webster calls it “a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.” And feminism is where you stress the women’s rights in the whole of the human race. Another instance where people have gone to say that they refuse to use the new “f-word” because they don’t believe that they are what the definition stands for is when Angela Merkel doesn’t stake a claim to the word. When asked if she were a feminist her response was: “To be honest the history of feminism is one with which I have common ground but also differences, and I don’t want to embellish myself with a title I don’t have.” The funny thing is that she’s the first female chancellor of Germany. And shouldn’t the FIRST FEMALE CHANCELLOR of Germany take some, even a little, bit of pride in that? She broke a lot of grounds because she is the first female chancellor, especially since we lost one of our own chances back in November, so shouldn’t she be proud she’s taken steps towards places like Germany, WHICH IS A ENTIRE COUNTRY, for the female race? Though, it may be the common ground she’s talking about, but it sure is uncanny. Angela Merkel and The Handmaid’s Tale are both examples of people who don’t really take pride in what they are proving to show. From having the lead character be a struggling female put into a life situation where it’s not feasible to do anything, to a world leader who doesn’t say she’s in a situation to take in the crown and call herself a feminist.
0 Comments
Lately, there have been more, and more women occurring in TV shows and movies as a prominent lead character, maybe even the protagonist the story is surrounding. And I certainly believe that women, now are playing bigger, bolder roles in which they don’t happen to be a prancing cliche with the words “I’m supposed to represent all women” tattooed on their forehead. And it’s fantastic that as a society we’ve gotten to a point where the female protagonist is stronger than before.
Despite my poor, poor ability in the area of speaking Bokmal Norwegian, I am currently wrapped in the newest season of SKAM. It’s a Norwegian TV series that focuses on teenagers, each season about a different character, which three out of the four have been women. The show is currently on season four, and it’s about Sana. Sana is a Muslim teenager who is thrown into society wearing a hijab, her sharp, sharp eyeliner, and is caked with what people have to fling at her. In episode one, the intro flashes Norwegian city scenes and flashes, of what I interpret, is everything wrong with the world. Including a picture of Donald Trump, which is pulled out as fast as it was pushed in, and I almost missed it. Sana is a Muslim woman in which Trump has attacked their people, on more than one occasion, and that deliberate Trump cameo is certainly a shot fired at the man. Throughout the episode, Sana’s mother is constantly calling about a meeting for a religious get together, she gets prayer reminders on her phone, and she shows an audience a side to the Muslim religion that most people haven’t seen. Note: that she is a female doing ALL of these things, and if that doesn’t make your little heart sing with inclusiveness then I don’t know. SKAM, has a targeted audience of teenagers who can relate to a show featuring teenagers, and shockingly, have them be teenager actors as well. And their inclusiveness to all types of people and genders makes me so ecstatic that this is happening. In one scene in episode one, Sana actually does do a religious prayer on a makeshift prayer rug and an empty room at a party. She pulls out her phone compass to point north and she mumbles her prayers. And in episode two, a bit of her prayer routine is shown as well. It’s an insight to what’s not really seen by people in a religious standpoint. Though I am not Muslim, and I don’t really know if it’s accurate or not, it seems as if it’s just a bit more introducing to a topic than most other media entertainment sources. The show has it’s place in my watchlist for its inclusiveness where they have female lead roles that are just as important, maybe even the tiniest bit more, and they have thoughtful, current issues being shown and talked about. Observations of the world passing by with blurs of colors and streaks of man made happiness scattered in between, occur in the depths of my retinas. I walk with my friends as I notice that their eyes have freckles shoved in between them, just like the stars hung in the night; I notice their will, might, and ferocity as we walk on past lives and past issues we face.
Strong, it’s a reserved adjective for my friends who nonetheless walk, they glide with each and every stride, into faces they’ve never seen and people they’ve never experienced, yet, they are friendly to an extent to say that their imaginary deities are smiling down upon them. My friends, they explain to me the unknown and they explain to me what I do know now. They make me realize things that have been obscured by the curtains of ignorance, they’ve opened just enough of the velvet sheet to expose the real world to me. My female friends, they suffer alongside me. They have morality shoved down inside their chests that just scream pure goodness. Understanding what’s going on is not only their job, but it’s their whole life; to stand up for their wins and losses and to teach others how to recover. They lose when they can’t believe what’s on t.v., but they win when they know they can change inhumane acts upon the minorities, and win when they stand up for fellow feminists, and they win when they are who they are and believing in what they believe in. I’m like a pupil who sits under their watch and care, and frankly, I couldn’t be more grateful. My friends let me borrow their stained glasses to see through their perspective, to get their stories, and most of the time, it’s frightening. Yet, they walk through the doors with those glasses on daily, and they seem to simply cherish those moments when they do. But, I don’t understand how they still have the will to be who they are and be here, surviving like that. The inhuman explanation would be that they simply are the gods above struck into people, and the human explanation is that they are tougher girls than most people would expect. Girls, are vulnerable and they are too often shot down, but, girls, they are also just like my friends, not afraid to fight this ongoing apathy, not afraid to call out the ignorance residing within people, not afraid to teach the uneducated, and not afraid of everything humans should be afraid of. My friends, are sculptors, who first built themselves out of soft stone, and they they begin to shape others. They’ve made me who I am today, they are my experiences and people always say that your experiences shape who you are today. I’m glad I can my experiences have held on for so long, I forget the countless years I’ve been slung onto shoulders just waiting to become who I am. My feminist friends are the pillows of people I am surrounded with, it’s comfy yet a sturdy, a great way to become whoever. As, I said before, strong, it’s an adjective to describe my friends, but it’s also an adjective to describe those whom they have touched and taught. In an article on Heat Street, it talks about an Australian woman, Sarrah Le Marquand, and how she “wants lawmakers to ban stay-home moms, and require women to return to work after having children.” The article talked about how Le Marquand was seeking to have women not differentiate from men when in regard to work ethics and schedules. This idea is to equalize women and men to achieve a more gender balanced work community. Le Marquand also claims “Moms who stay home are essentially mooching off the system.”
So to answer the question of “Should Moms be legally required to work?” my answer is an emphatic “no”. Women shouldn’t have to work if their little hearts plead not to, especially if the goal of doing so is to be equal in the workplace. Le Marquand also mentioned that moms should take off work for a child’s needs right up until their child departs for kindergarten. But, where is the morality, the heart in that statement? When I remember my primary school years, I remember being this small, frail child whose only thoughts were about my lunch that was packed in my Lisa Frank lunch bag and parents picking me up at the bus stop. I recall when my parents sent me away on the bus and received me back from the bus. The thought of that not happening to any child is saddening, and the thought of taking away the ability to because of nine, ten hour shifts in a workplace downtown is even more. Since most parents won’t be watching their primary school aged child go up those bus steps and watching them come back down at two in the afternoon, that affects the child too. Equality for women in the workplace is a huge controversial topic that is for another time, but having them have to attend a workplace and having their young child come home without parents home, in my opinion, compares to about even. Forcing moms and dads to become the same parental outlook for children is how Le Marquand believes our society will achieve this golden ticket of serenity between genders. To put it simply out there, it’s not; forcing people to do things that you think will benefit your type of better future isn’t a good way to be hoping for change. Change comes from when the people want to better their place, not for their own benefit, but to benefit a whole group of people. Making people the exact carbon copy of one another, including their attitudes towards those of other genders, doesn’t create equality. Instead those carbon copies end up becoming the corrupted villains of the next blockbuster sci-fi movie. People should be allowed to dictate what they want to do, not only will “barring” up our women, mother figures, and human beings create chaos on all sides of the train track, we won’t achieve the euphoria of equality we are looking for. At a recent United Nations meeting, Justin Trudeau, who is the Prime Minister of Canada and is also leader of the Liberal Party in the country, declared himself a feminist: “I’m going to keep saying loud and clearly that I am a feminist until it is met with a shrug.” Though many people can say that they simply are a feminist, they won’t actually fight the apathy that is happening. An article on The Guardian, written by Ashifa Kassam, discusses the issue of whether or not Trudeau truly is a feminist, simply based off his comments. Their answer was a resounding “no – or at least, not yet.”
A group in Canada, OxFam is asking the same questions and created and released so called “feminist scorecard” this month; it is essentially a “rubric” for the feminism standards, measuring if Trudeau is actually fulfilling his words. This “feminist scorecard” takes into account what progress politicians, in this case Trudeau, have made. The scorecard has eight categories, and according to Oxfam Canada, those topics include “representation, taxation, climate [and] natural resources, violence against women, care work, global development, jobs, and response to conflict [and] crises.” They are “scored” on a stoplight color code, red, yellow and green. Based on what is normal for cars to obey, red is for no progress done, yellow for being indifferent and taking no intentional action, and green being put into play and working. The real purpose of this isn’t to rule a single person out for not performing to the perfect standards we expect, but it is rather about how much progress has been made so far, and which areas they could improve in. Oxfam found that when “grading” with the scorecard, Canada is “sorely underfunded and Canada’s international aid budget is at a near record-low.” Canada’s Indigenous women have certainly suffered a lifetime of suffering, over 4,000 women have been marked missing or murdered in the past 30 years, pay gap is still large and the women population in jails has been a rising number. The only thing Canada has a green in on the scorecard is Representation and Leadership. They certainly have a gender balanced cabinet and has funding for the advocacy of women’s rights. Proving that at least one aspect of feminism is being strung through. The rest of the scorecard, shows yellow all across the board and one category, Jobs and Pay Equity, buzzes with the bright, profound red. According to what is written on the scorecard, “the government has disappointingly taken very few steps to ensure women’s work is fairly paid and equally valued.” There is both a good category being brought out, and a category that is neglected and left there to solve itself. The rest of it being yellow is put on pause and shoved behind other current issues. When first approached with the idea of this “feminist scorecard”, I thought it was amusing and it seemed like a working schedule to keep in check with. Starting with a country like Canada is astounding. It’s pretty much what I would like to be taking place in the United States as well. Here, we barely even have representation, especially since the President believes in exploiting women’s spaces. This check and balance like scorecard would make a better country out of us. I believe other countries adopting this and making feminism seem like a norm will ‘rack up more points’ for each country, while promoting the advocacy of women’s rights. Since this is starting up for countries, a contemplative action would be to push it onto the people and keep them in check as well. And for this, I’m not one hundred percent up for pushing foreign standards onto people who just simply don’t believe and I’m not completely up for deciding your level of feminist based on a nationwide based scorecard. Though, I am for sure up to letting someone decide what their boundaries and intents for being a feminist is. The feminist scorecard is a comical, yet a compelling concept to completely swallow. It would be a plausible candidate for big world change, as long as a country of people are willing to contribute their help and impacting the government to become better. At the intersection of Flinders and Swanston street in Melbourne, Australia, they have taken the initiative to change the crossing lights to a female figure. An article written on TheGuardian discussing these actions says that the lights are to be “fitted out with female figures as part of a 12-month trial spearheaded by the Committee of Melbourne.” These female figures are replacing the men figures in a way to reduce the inequality that is constantly happening.
In a video attached to the article, the Senior Traffic Engineer at City Networks explains that they only had to “[replace] the plastic mask which was about three dollars, so it wasn’t an expensive exercise.” Seeming as it is just simple as that, this new trend of spreading equality by starting small shouldn’t be a hard task to manage and little things like this could essentially erupt a new wave of better innovation. What this little task does for me, is that it seems like a monumental step in the society we have now which isn’t filled to the brim with influential women. A question some could ask about these female figures illuminating sidewalks is is this action taking it too far and eliminating other gender’s figures? I personally don’t believe that it’s taking it too far, but I will agree that other gender’s might not get predominately featured. This is raising awareness for female equality, but I will say that it’s not bashing other genders either. Equality through all genders would be a serene all too good world, and I think that starting with female figures in crosswalk lights is a good foundation for building up other genders too. I have heard that women don’t like the idea of the female figurine having a dress on and saying that the dress conforms to the social norms of connecting to the patriarchy. A lot of different theories and confirmed hard, cold opinions about the dress really made me wonder about how putting up these figures with dresses will make people of society more conforming? Would they just expect us to wear more feminine things and be the face of the color pink? I think stepping away from the dress on the female figure could help the reputation of women and that the female crosswalk lights, with or without the triangle dress, are a good way to start the initiative to change the gender equality. This is just a fantastic thing that is being tested out right now in countries that are evolving towards gender equality. This really is a huge action to feminism and gender equality in general. Red is a color known for its characteristics of danger, raging war, power and so many more, but on March 8th, we celebrate the other side of the color red, the passionate and loving side. Together on International Women’s Day, people wear the color red to show the mentality of loving their ambitions and their will to stand up for who they are.
A Day Without Women, is a name some would associate with the March 8th holiday, for women can protest inequality in today’s society by taking a day off of their paid or unpaid labor. This is a step on the many level building that is trying to fight for gender equality in the workplace. Women definitely play a huge role in our socio-economic system, yet they do not receive as much as the men do for doing the same good deeds. While women are taking their day off, men, according to an article concerning International Women’s Day on al.com, “men are asked to use the day to increase their support for the women in their life, including taking on childcare and domestic duties, and to push for equal pay in the workplace.” Another thing that people can do is to not shop for the whole day. And if you have shopping as a must do on your checklist, the Women's March campaign makes “exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses.” This brings light to acknowledging how hard it actually is to run a business, let alone a local small business. Using this day to profit the businesses who don’t usually get seen in the current time. I personally didn’t even know that International Women’s Day even had such ways of commemorating the female struggle. Let alone that this year’s holiday had a theme of being bold to cause a change. I superbly like the idea that women get a single day where they can choose to promote their undeniable human rights in a way that isn’t offensive or demeaning to a certain group. I will definitely be celebrating this day with my fellow female friends. It’s fundamental that sisters of the world and country can join together to have another grouping of women to define their rights. In January, shortly following the inauguration there was a Women’s March prominently in Washington D.C., but also scattered all throughout the United States. This was considered a major stepping stone of 2017, leading women to become empowered in way that will cause change. I hope March 8th will be a mass coming together of all genders to profoundly inspire people to change the female inequality that is happening all across the country. Last year’s Best Actress winner at the Oscars was Brie Larson, which she won for her performance in the movie Room. The character she played in the movie was Joy, and according to The Mercury News, “[it was a] harrowing story about a woman who was kidnapped by a man as a teen and regularly sexually assaulted in the ensuing years of years of captivity.” From winning this award, she gets to present the the next year's Best Actor award. Which went to Casey Affleck for his performance in Manchester by the Sea.
Brie Larson is an advocate and has done volunteer work regarding helping sexual assault victims. One thing that she did at the 2016 Oscars, that was remarkable in my eyes, was that she hugged every single sexual assault victim that walked off the stage from Lady Gaga’s performance. This shows empathy and I graciously appreciate her for that. A noteable thing she she recently did this Sunday was not applaud when she announced that Casey Affleck won the 2017 Best Actor Oscar award. She stood with her limp arms dangling waiting for a better reason to clap. For Casey Affleck has been accused of sexual acts harassment in 2010 towards women co-workers. Though, this may be completely inaccurate or completely true, Larson stood for what she thought was injusticely wrong. This was an act of defiance in which I applaud her for. Larson, believing that this is a person has suggested sexual harassment tied on his back, and not reacting in the most welcoming fashion is what truly makes her stand out. Most would have applauded along, swiping his allegations away because of his title of “New Best Actor” and overlooking the fact that he may have done something inexcusable. This act of defiance may have looked small in hindsight, and may be disregarded in future cases or forgotten in years to go by. However this woman, who I have looked up to since she starred in the film Hoot, which, coincidentally, she starred as a teenage girl holding her ground and promoting what she believed in, is one to respect. Affleck getting awarded with not only an Oscar, but showered in love, considering the allegations upon him was erasing the identity of the women affected and every other woman living and breathing. Showing that if he can get away with this and still being thrown flowers and covered applause, takes a toll on women, because this shows that women are inferior and what has been done upon them by others can be swished aside for a great performance in a 4.5 star movie. She has defiantly showed the people watching their television screens what she found in the award winner wasn’t up her liking and that she knows what she believes in and isn’t afraid to portray it. Melania Trump, America’s new First Lady, has stirred up controversy all throughout Donald Trump’s run for presidency. From plagiarizing a speech to having people insult her accent on live television, these are all examples of both ends of the spectrum, bad and good on her part. She has now taken a role of power that affects the country greatly, and there are concerns and questions on what she will do to impact us in a way that other First Ladies have not. For example, Michelle Obama approved of The School Lunch program allowing children to eat their school lunches at a lower price or free. This has taken a toll all across the country, and will Melania provide the same change we need? A major question people have, me as well, is whether she will step up and fight for her own gender’s rights with her power.
Firstly, the question of “Is Melania Trump obligated to fight for women’s rights” sounds pretty demanding, already assuming that she is not already fighting for her rights. I personally don’t know if she’s stood up against misogyny or taken a stand to promote what pressing issues we have going on, but I will not say that I won’t see any in her future. Melania Trump follows in the steps of many women who did feel the need to stand up for their rights. Another example would be Eleanor Roosevelt who was an avid woman and who painted her walls with feminism. Roosevelt worked with multiple women’s groups all across. Was she obligated to do that, no, but that’s what she believed in. So, my title question of whether Melania is obligated to fight for women’s rights translates to is she willing to believe in those rights? No, Melania is not obligated. The whole concept of this was to define if she HAD to do anything. People don’t have to do anything. People don’t have to go to school, or work; they do it because it ultimately trickles down to the fact that they want to. Not that they have to work for their families to eat food, but rather, they want their families to eat food at night and sleep with a stomach that isn’t grumbling with the crumbs of yesterday. Melania shouldn’t have to fight for women’s rights like most First Ladies preceding her, but it all boils down to whether she wants to. She’s not obligated to do anything for her gender, and that’s okay, because she will be remembered for what she did that hits the heart hardest. Whether she leads an American Gender revolution or if she sits on the sidelines with a floppy foam finger, it’s not what she’s obligated to do, it’s what she wants to change. The whole concept of White Feminism is different from what the actual definition of feminism depicts. (Note that I am capitalizing White Feminism to differentiate from white feminism, where white feminists are feminists who are Caucasian.) White Feminism isn’t inclusive at all, from a millennial perspective, it’s actually tainting what feminists really do stand for. All inclusive feminism, gives a voice to the women of color who are already oppressed more than Caucasians.
When talking about wage gap, people usually criticize the society for giving white women only 78 cents compared to the whole dollar a man makes. But, do those people realize that 78% of a dollar is not the lowest employers will go? In an article on New Republic, it talks about how the gender wage gap is even worse for women of color: “Hispanic women earn 54 percent, followed by black women at 64 percent, and Native American at 65 percent.” White Feminism, here, is rooting for the 78 cents to go up to a dollar when Hispanic women only earn 54 cents every 78 cents a white woman makes. White Feminism is also when you believe that all women of all colors protested for their right to vote and received it in 1920. When the 19th amendment was passed declaring that people could vote regardless of their sex, some Southern states only let that declaration ring free in the 1960s, they didn’t allow their fellow people who weren’t white to vote. This simply puts into words that White Feminism oppresses people of color who are still struggling for their own rights when white people had them covered long before. This White Feminism has given birth to other types of names used for feminists who are all so including and accepting of their fellow friends regardless of skin color. Intersectional Feminism, Womanist and many other derived words, all deriving from White Feminism, have been created because the word Feminism just wasn’t inclusive enough. Intersectionality refers to being inclusive of all regardless of any title one gives themselves. In my opinion, the term isn’t really needed it’s merely wanted. Feminism in general should be inclusive to all genders, race, sexuality, class and much more. Womanist, as I have read on the internet, is to Feminism as purple is to violet. It was created because the oppressed felt as if they had no choice but to call themselves a womanist because being a feminist was too white washed. It is said that a womanist also accepts black women in a way that regular feminism never did. White Feminism has given way to problems in this feminism universe that were never needed. It’s not inclusive in a way that makes ALL people feel at home. This definition of these two words combined in a joint effort, should be one to make its exit out of society. Feminism is where all people, despite everything that makes them part of the oppressed, come together and support one another. |
Angela LuRavine writer Archives |