All the while insisting we call them “feminist”
Meghan Murphy is amused by people who insist that Kim Kardashian really is a feminist even though she says she isn’t.
At this point, it’s basically illegal for celebrities not to call themselves feminist, even if they really hate feminism, so naturally dozens of hot takes were published over the past week explaining that actually Kim, you are feminist even if you say you aren’t and even if you think the idea of “women’s liberation” is totally ick.
Through said hot takes I’ve deduced that Kim understands why people might assume she is a feminist, writing, “I work hard, I make my own money, I’m comfortable and confident in my own skin, and I encourage women to be open and honest about their sexuality, and to embrace their beauty and their bodies.”
Well now slow down there, Kim – you don’t really mean you encourage women to embrace their beauty and their bodies – not women as such, women in general, women as in all women – you mean the ones who are in fact beautiful. You don’t want ugly women cluttering up the place embracing their bodies.
This is actually unintentionally pointed. The reason internet feminism is so insistent that Kim K is a feminist just like themmmm is because they have chipped away everything political and radical about feminism in order to turn it into merely a label someone can choose to wear. (I mean, how hard is it to just put on a t-shirt! Guys! Guys. Please just put on this t-shirt? You can wipe your jizzy hand on it after you’re done watching Latina Teen Gangbang IV!) We needn’t care about patriarchy and other systems of power that marginalize women, we must simply like sex (especially with men!) and we must feel “confident in [our] own skin” and “embrace our bodies” in patriarchily-approved ways like by posting selfies of our objectified asses on the internet.
If we’re beautiful enough. Don’t go doing that shit if you’re ugly!
But more to the point, as Meghan says: that’s not what feminism is about. Nor is it about everyone.
Tellingly, what really pissed off America’s liberal feminists is Kim’s definition of feminism. She writes:
“For me, a feminist is someone who advocates for the civil and social rights and liberties of all people, regardless of their gender; anyone who believes that women should have the same choices and opportunities as men when it comes to education and employment, their bodies and their lifestyles.”
She goes on to say:
“It’s not about he, she, gay, straight, black, white. The fight for equality is about all human beings being treated equally — regardless of gender, sexuality or ethnicity.”
Ha no. The fight for equality is about that, sure, but feminism is not, and feminism is no more about equality for evrybuddy than Black Lives Matter is about all lives mattering. As Meghan says, if feminism were about evrybuddy, why would it be called feminism?
A writer at fbomb points out that “the feminist label” has been “stigmatized” for years (and that Kim’s not helping by distancing herself from it). While this is true, the solution adopted by celebrities, mainstream media, and liberal feminists has been to depoliticize the word and water down the message rather than to actually be brave, and stand up for women regardless of that “stigma.” I mean, feminists are hated for a reason — and that reason is our message and our fight. The solution to opposition is not to cave and to cater to patriarchal, capitalist ideologies, selling our message in a way that placates our enemies — it’s to push back.
Quite. Feminism isn’t “being nicer to people” or “loving your body” or “empowerment through selfies.” It isn’t universally popular, and being universally popular isn’t its goal.
While Marcie Bianco at Quartz claims Kardashian is contradicting herself by saying she supports “women’s rights,” “equality,” and “women’s empowerment” but isn’t a feminist, she’s not. She knows full-well that she doesn’t want to be part of the feminist movement and she doesn’t support it’s goals. To her, “empowering women” just means she supports women’s right to, like, make money and get naked. She wants women to be free to do stuff (All sorts of stuff!), but doesn’t actually want to name or address the reasons why women are treated differently in this world and are dehumanized on the regular. Kim’s just being honest with herself and with the world, which is more than I can say for most of our liberal overlords who push sexual harassment and porn culture as “empowerment,” all the while insisting we call them “feminist.”
Kim’s a Kimmist. Let her go.
An identity, if you will.
Ha. Exactly.
Those people are not liberal. They are reactionary.
Feminist Current is Canadian. There and in the UK “liberal” is close to US libertarian.
And (she added) I would say they’re far more libertarian than reactionary.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but I have not seen Canadian usage of “liberal” as an equivalent to “libertarian”. For example, our Liberal Parties, both provincial and federal, have rather progressive socialist leanings.
Feminist Current is an oasis of sanity.
@ ^
Heh.
(I’ll grant you that’s a popular definition of sanity: “the state of holding the same political views as myself”.)
Silentbob #8, I’m not going to get in a fight with you, but I assure you I’m a little smarter than that.
Theo Bromine @ 6 – oops. I’m wrong then.
Maybe it’s simplest to say MM is using liberal as distinct from radical. Superficial, and unwilling to risk being unpopular.
Silentbob @ 8 – that comment is literally nothing but a smug point-and-laugh. Please stop doing that.
When’s the court case?
With magic, reality-TV pixie dust, the Sexual Harassment Pumpkin is transformed into the ‘Erotic Capital’ limo.
And…its is really eerie to see media Hawtness become so strangely formalized. There are ‘hawt’ signifiers that seem unmoored from beauty. Those paralyzed faces, the inflated lips etc. They are as ritualized as Geisha drag. Not really conceivable as properties of real -life people.
The only thing that seemed to survive this push to destigmatize feminism is the word itself. People wanted so badly for “feminism” to not trigger this negative knee-jerk reaction, but they only succeeded by making it a toothless word that no one feels a need to react to.
It’s not that I don’t understand. I’m also irritated by people assuming all sorts of stupid shit about feminism and feminists. But I can also understand that feminism is, by its very nature, going to upset a lot of people. I can understand that it is not something that everyone is going to embrace, or even see reason for embracing. A lot of women, Kim Kardashian included, have found a comfortable place for themselves in things the way they are. They have found a way to make the patriarchal status quo work for them, and in that light, I think it’s entirely obvious why those people would not be especially enthusiastic about any ideology/viewpoint that wouldn’t include those opportunities.
A lot of us who embrace feminism aren’t in that category. We haven’t found a comfortable place in that system, and more importantly, we don’t want to. We don’t understand how anybody would be, and we have a hard time believing women who say they are; I think that’s where a lot of this push to say “every woman is a feminist, even if you think you’re not” comes from. It’s this insistence that somebody just can’t believe something harmful about themselves and their role in the world, so they must just be confused about what they believe.
But I’m willing to admit that I might just not get it. That’s certainly been the explanation in the back of my head for, say, my entire life. I don’t get wanting to be a wife and mother (I gag a little bit just typing it, FFS). I don’t get thinking that I should defer to someone else for no reason other than my sex/gender. I don’t get accepting someone else’s explanation of who and what I am. But a lot of people do, and that’s okay. It is okay that those people are not feminists; it is okay that beliefs that would be devastating for me are actually positive for them. I still hope that those beliefs are going to disappear from the face of the earth one day, but I can acknowledge that I’m in the minority on that one.
I can be a feminist, and I can still support the many, many women who are not. Not by trying to convert them or by broadening the definition of “feminist” to fit them in, but simply by understanding that they are the ones who will reap the benefits of feminism, not feminism as a label or personal identity, but feminism as a movement of women’s liberation from patriarchy. And even then, if they cursed feminism and feminists to their dying breath, that would be just fine too. Feminism has never been about being popular, and it never will be, no matter how many people would prefer it to be about silly t-shirts and hashtags. It’s not for everyone, and that’s okay.
Have you met my mother?
Seriously, Zug, that is right on. I think you’ve got it. And many of the women don’t perceive their attitude as harmful. My mother swore that feminism was bad for women, and that if women could work (could, mind you, not even had to), it would mean the end of her marriage. I went out to work as young as I possibly could, feminism took women into the workplace in large numbers, and my mother died married to the same man she married at the age of 18. No amount of evidence showing that feminism had not harmed her would have convinced her that feminism had not harmed her.
J t D @ 13 – right? They look unnervingly like inflatable dolls.
[…] a comment by ZugTheMegasaurus on All the while insisting we call them […]