Most people reading might not know that, for the past year, I’ve been unemployed. My former job required me to drive. Since my car accident in February, it has been difficult to find work. My insurance didn’t fully cover the cost of another car (that figures), and my credit would stop me from getting anything. Out where I live, there aren’t too many car lots that don’t run a credit check.
On top of that, I have a severe disability that makes it hard for me to be hired for just any job. I’m also a 5″ petite femme-looking person, and that holds me back from being hired for the physically laborious jobs that are usually reserved for men by the employers.
Like many people in my situation, the Pandemic already dried up a lot of my savings last year when hours were reduced. The car accident was horribly timed, just as I was trying to restore my savings.
Unlike many people in my situation, I don’t have family members and friends I can rely on for help.
The first thing I did was I sought help from my State in my Country, the USA. Sure, there are Food Stamps or Food Assistance Programs, programs to help keep the water, gas, and electric on, and even ways to get your rent paid. But I realized how inaccessible even those resources are when you’re lacking programs to help in other ways. There are other, possibly even more, important things that poor people need that seem to be largely inaccessible, and it makes getting the available resources, like Food Stamps, difficult as well.
When talking to anyone about these issues, it becomes clear that people don’t realize what privileges they have. The privileged tend to give the worst advice, even those working with programs that are supposed to help the poor, like the Salvation Army. Even the resource hotline in the USA, 2-1-1, has been stumped when trying to help me get access to the resources I’m about to go into.
Here are some of the things people don’t realize are necessities and are largely inaccessible.
Toiletries, Diapers, and Feminine Hygiene Products
It’s definitely a cis man’s world. Back when I used to work with HSAs (Health Spending Accounts) and FSAs (Flexible Spending Accounts) in 2020, it shocked me how menstrual care products weren’t even covered pre-tax as a qualified medical expense. But Viagra was. Eventually, the government caved during the Pandemic, but why did it take all of that to get this necessity covered?
Men don’t need Viagra; those who menstruate do need menstrual products. They can’t help that blood comes out of them every month.
I have fibroids, huge ones, and bleed extremely heavy every month. I’m sure readers don’t want to hear all of that, but the problem is that no one wants to talk about it. We need to talk about this. For many poor people, trying to find any services that offer free feminine hygiene products is horrifying.
People who menstruate also need toiletries, like toilet paper and soap.
Sure, I’ve had people tell me about their old grandma in the 1940s who used rags. They also used old t-shirts as pads. But tell me how many of them didn’t have soap to wash these rags after every use? How many people had proper drying racks for hanging?
They all cost, and I’m sure when people suddenly become poor nowadays, they don’t have these items available because they never thought they would need it. They also can’t just get up and go buy these things.
Further, how many people truly got infections back then because they didn’t fully clean their rags, which probably needed Bleach? Probably many more people.
Also, how many old shirts can one find in a year? How many rags need to be ruined to the point you don’t even have any to wash your body or your dishes? I don’t have a dishwasher, so everything is washed by hand.
If your blood flow is as bad as mine, you’re running through rags and damaging them. Washing has to be consistent in order to avoid infection, which can be hard when you can’t afford SOAP.
It’s pathetic that there are food stamps but there are no “stamps” for these very important needs. Even the Salvation Army and other local programs have all the food and clothes in the world, but no toiletries and menstrual products.
If you have the privilege of having the internet, it’s difficult to find any programs across the whole country. The ones that exist only help their own small community, and they don’t offer any free shipping to another state.
My local hospital is in another town, far away, and doesn’t offer enough pads for the whole week. I have run through at least 3 big bags of Always’s Overnight per menstrual period, and this is with a menstrual cup (which I’m thankful I invested in years ago). This is aside from the fact there’s been a shortage recently.
Why aren’t enough people speaking up about this? Have people found a way around this issue, and I just don’t know about it?
Diapers are also overlooked by these programs. I’m sure it’s so the companies that make these products profit off of people for things they’ve made people dependent on. I get it. But, like with food, there still should be some sort of programs that allow people to access these necessities.
Assistance with Washing
Speaking of needing access to soap, I’d like to add that poor people do need help with washing. If you don’t live in a house with a washing machine and dryer, you either have to have soap to be able to wash clothes by hand, a drying rack or some way of drying the clothes outside, or you need money for the laundry mat. To add, poor people need to be able to find a laundry mat nearby in their neighborhood in the first place.
In my case, in my apartment, tenants have to pay to use the washing machines and dryers. The cost comes to 4.00 ($2.00 wash and $2.00 to dry) every two weeks. That’s a lot of money for someone with no money.
If an individual doesn’t have family members, friends, or even kind neighbors, what are the next best options? Sure, a poor person can make their own soap, granted they have the ingredients necessary lying around in their cupboards before they became broke, and wash by hand. It’s hard to dry without a drying rack, but I guess it can be done by laying clothes out on a bush or a few chairs.
But overall, something is going to cost eventually.
Without clean clothes, it’s hard to function, especially when you don’t have access to feminine hygiene products. People can’t even go on job interviews without clean clothes.
This is aside from the fact that finding clean clothes at shelters or at the Salvation Army is difficult, too. I don’t even want to go into trying to find clean underwear.
Phone, Internet, Printing, and Mailing Services
Even though the world has progressed, it appears that state resources haven’t. This is possibly just in my area, but phone service and internet are still not considered necessities. I wonder what these rich politicians would think if their services were suddenly cut off for the month.
Almost every resource available either requires people to call for an appointment or to go to the facility. If the building that offers the resource is way across town, it can be difficult to go directly to the place. Often times, the best way to reach any person or place is by phone. To add, afterwards, many of these places often call back with results. How can they reach people with no phone service?
If poor people apply for jobs, they often have to wait for a call back, too. How would they know if they got the job or not without phone service?
No one uses landline phones anymore. Everyone uses cell phone service because it’s convenient and safe to use in and out of the house. Why isn’t it covered as a utility yet? There are a few phone services that offer discounts, but if an individual is poor, they can’t afford to even pay the discounted price. The one source where the government pays for phone service requires a poor person to have a child.
I believe 911 never cuts off on a cell phone, but this is only a hunch. How can any poor person reach someone in an emergency situation?
Cell phones can also offer internet, so it has the ability to offer two services in one go.
It’s crazy how some people still think internet isn’t a necessity. The Pandemic taught everyone how important the internet is. If it weren’t for the internet, millions of people would have been out of work. Many companies would have shut down entirely.
Nowadays, most companies, even the fast food restaurants and local grocery stores, require people to apply for jobs online. I can’t tell you how many stores I’ve gone into that no longer offer hard copy applications anymore. Believe me, I’ve asked.
No one can just go up to a store manager and ask for side work anymore. We don’t live in that age. So why is the nation so behind in understanding how important this is?
The library would normally be the next best place to go, but my nearest library is literally two hours away, in another town. Also, it costs to use the internet in many libraries. Even $.50 is a lot for a poor person, especially when they are deciding whether to use the money to wash clothes, eat, or use the internet.
Printing and faxing are extra expenses aside from using the internet. I’ve come to realize that in order to get approved for state resources such as Food Assistance and Utility Assistance, I needed documentation to PROVE I needed it. In order to prove that, I needed to either have companies mail copies of important documentation to me or I needed to print it from my email. Often times, the window for turning in this documentation is very small. The easiest option is to have a company email documentation and print it off. But oops-that costs.
Many of these services don’t allow poor people to print at their facilities. So, how are poor people supposed to prove they are poor when they are too poor to prove it?
Printing resumes is another important chore. Who offers services for that? Poor people are often talked down on, told they are bums, that they just don’t want to work, considering so many jobs are supposedly “hiring everywhere now”. Well, who is helping these poor people print off their resumes, something required by nearly every job now?
And after printing all of these documents, trying to get it to the facilities without proper transportation can be extremely difficult. Mailing is an option, but it’s also a costly one. The cost to send even one simple letter has gone up over the years, and it can be a lot for a poor person, especially for someone who is sending documents to more than one facility.
Resume-Building and Interview Assistance
While we’re on the subject of resumes, it’s very clear a lot of poor people need help with building their resumes and preparing for interviews. Many people have been on their personal jobs for years before being let go. The Pandemic put a lot of people out of jobs they’ve been on for many years. Their resumes may no longer be as strong as it was before and their interview finesse may be lacking.
But getting help with resumes and interviews is a very costly thing. When trying to put myself out there, I’ve landed many interviews, but haven’t gotten any jobs. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong, but I also don’t have the money to find out.
There are programs that help poor people find work without resumes, but those programs usually require poor people to travel across town to long-distance facilities. Most of these programs exist in Urban areas, not small towns.
Transportation
I’ve mentioned throughout most of this article how “this was way across town” or “that is far away”. This leans into the most difficult thing for poor people to find: transportation. People don’t realize how privileged they are to have it.
I spoke with a representative working with the Salvation Army. She told me that I needed to come into the facility the very next day to get help with my utilities, otherwise the money could dry up quickly or it will be used before I got there. I asked her how I could get there. She said “Take the bus” or get an “Uber”. She’s clearly never been poor in the town she works in, which is my town.
Those are very condescending words when speaking to poor people. First off, believe it or not, in my neighborhood, public transportation largely doesn’t exist. Believe it or not, public transportation isn’t available everywhere. Yes, you read that correctly. No bus service, at all. Second, the bus costs nearly $2.00 to take, both to travel to a destination and to get home. Most poor people would have to beg on the streets to get that kind of money for transportation, especially when they are trying to save their change for the other costly items mentioned before.
There is a “free ride” service in my community, but riders have to call two weeks in advance to schedule in a ride. That’s not helpful when the Salvation Army tells people to get there the next day or risk losing resources. It’s also not helpful when poor people need to make several trips throughout the week to get documentation, to go on job interviews, or to go get groceries and other important items.
Walking is always an option. However, the summer is blazing hot and the winters are bitter cold where I live. During the summer, I didn’t have money for sunscreen, so my walk to my nearest resource center gave me sunburn. And Aloe Vera isn’t free, either. Poor people also need to be able to carry water. That means they need a container to put the water in. Bottled water isn’t free.
During the Winter, poor people need adequate hats and gloves to walk the two hours it takes to get to the facility that helps with Utility and Food Assistance. It’s not so nice to have to walk to these facilities in mountains of snow, either.
Overall…
Being poor has helped me check my former privilege in ways unimaginable. Before being poor, I thought I knew what was most important: Food and shelter. But no. Our society has developed in a way that has made us dependent on certain resources that there’s no way to live without it. Unless the solution is to have poor people die off in a “survival-of-the-fittest” type of way, the USA needs to do more to help the poor.
There needs to be programs that offer feminine hygiene products, soap, and toiletries. There should be “banks” or drives that offer that. Possibly Incontinence and Feminine Products Stamps. There should be vouchers or community washing machines somewhere in every community. It should be as available as libraries. At least, apartments should have one free washing machine and dryer for residents. Phones and Internet are now necessities and should be covered by the same programs that offer Food and Utility Assistance. These facilities that offer assistance programs should invest in transportation and should allow poor people to print and gather documentation at their facilities. Every community, at minimum, should have public transportation. The window for gathering documentation should be longer than 10 days. The Salvation Army shouldn’t make appointments with people if there’s no guarantee the money won’t be there. The appointments’ line order should decide who gets the available money. This ensures poor people aren’t wasting their time setting up a date and crawling around for transportation only to find the money is dried up by the time they find something. Every community should have a career center that helps adults transition back to work. At minimum, people can make appointments with a career expert and have them review resumes.
As the elections come up, I think citizens need to think more about where their tax money is going and whether it will help them, in the long run, when they’re at their lowest. That should shape our politics, who we vote for, and the changes we want to see in the future. There’s no way a supposed “1st world country”, such as the USA, should have so many issues dealing with the poor, yet here we are.
Halle Bailey as Ariel from Disney’s The Little Mermaid
White-washing. I’m sure everyone has heard this word once or twice. Simply put, it’s a word used to describe when Hollywood casts White people or lighter people to play everyone, especially characters that were originally people of color. It has been seen as another term to describe “Blackface” in the modern era. White-washing has existed since the beginning of cinema, even when Black people were “allowed” to act in Hollywood. In fact, Whitewashing existed frequently up until as recently as 2017. It was around this time, in 2017, when Hollywood started to realize that casting White actors to play various ethnicities doesn’t always pay pockets in a modern society (Ghost in the Shell, 2017), even if the actor is well known and loved. They even recognized that it could be a career-killer for movie studios and actors alike.
After complaints about the Oscars’ selection of nominees appearing as “White” as possible, the Oscars began to set new diversity standards of eligibility for Movie Academy Awards in 2020. The rules were as follows:
At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role.
The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled.
At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.
This caused Hollywood to go through a frenzy of hiring people of color anywhere they could. One way they have implemented this change is by casting Black people to play characters that were originally White, either by suddenly presenting them as Black…or actually calling them “White” (Hamilton-style) despite their race, with the audience having to suspend a bit of reality. This has been called in recent years “Black-washing”.
Just like with White-washing, Black-washing has also had its share of controversy. Some people find it to be hypocritical that “Black-washing” is allowed culturally when White-washing often gets met with disdain and backlash. Others don’t like “Black-washing” because it makes everything feel less authentic or unrecognizable as the cast doesn’t match the character in the source or most familiar material.
On the other hand, many like this type of casting choice because they feel it finally gives Black people and other people of color more representation. Some have even argued that blackwashing as an ideology doesn’t exist and that casting black people in these types of roles is simply another form of reparations for the mistreatment and erasure of Black people from media during the Golden Age Of Hollywood and during the days of the Hay’s Code (a time when Hollywood restricted what could be seen in cinema).
What I aim to do is give a nuanced perspective about “Black-washing”. Regardless of whether I think the theory holds any merit, as a Black person myself, I want to discuss the good that could come with this idea or concept, the bad that could come with this idea or concept, and the ugly that can often surround this idea or concept. Let’s break it all down.
What this means is that Black-washing gives Black people an opportunity to be even more represented. That is a major feat, believe it or not. I actually remember a time when I went to Backstage.com to find auditions and many of the auditions would say “White-preferred”. As someone who used to be an aspiring actor, it was discouraging to say the least. This was in the early 2010s, not too long ago.
Make no mistake. Almost every lead character is still white, but at least more of them are starting to be people of color. I no longer feel like I would automatically be rejected from an opportunity just because of the color of my skin. I feel like I can finally be recognized for my talent, the talents I’ve had since high school, if I choose acting as a career choice again.
In a sense, this makes Black-washing different from White-washing. White people have never actually been barred from playing any roles in cinema. They have had plenty of opportunities; doors have been open to them from around the world and the doors still are open. Therefore, the effects of White-washing are actually a lot more harmful to Black people than Black-washing is to White people. Black-washing doesn’t bar White people from getting opportunities. Rather, it “evens” the playing field. Don’t misunderstand, I do see a lot of pitfalls that can come from “Black-washing” (which I will get into later in this article), but some of the arguments that many people make against “Black-washing” are usually based on misconceptions, bias, or racial prejudice.
Here is a common argument for example:
“Black people only make up 19% of the population in America. White people are the majority so why should black people get an increase in roles?”
There are two problems with this statement. One problem is that there is a sense of American-centrism, basically Americans acting as if the entire world demographic begins and ends with America. In the entire world, there are more people of color then White people across continents. To be frank, many actors hired in Hollywood are not exactly from the USA. Many of them are from other countries. So this argument that having more Black people in Hollywood is somehow inaccurate or inauthentic is strange.
Second, these kinds of arguments seem to assume that White people will not relate to characters that are of a different race, so by making more characters of color it will somehow push White people away from watching movies. However, people of color have had to relate to characters of various backgrounds for decades, due to the dominance of White actors in media, and are constantly told that it shouldn’t matter what color they are. So shouldn’t the same apply to White people? Furthermore, why is it that viewers must relate to what they see personally? Isn’t it great to learn about something new and imagine what that would be like? I don’t relate to Harry Potter as a wizard, but I like learning and imagining what it would be like to have wizarding powers. Why doesn’t this logic apply to movies featuring Black culture?
To add, many of the characters that are accused of being “Black-washed” in a movie or a show are often played by mixed or biracial people. This makes the outrage a little more complex. We often have a tendency to see every mixed person that has a drop of black as ONLY black. I don’t think this is fair, especially if the actor in question is mixed with White ancestry and understands White culture. If they can act as Black characters, why shouldn’t someone of mixed ancestry be able to act as a White character? Sure, we can talk about how often times the mixed person doesn’t, in any way, resemble the character they are meant to portray. I think in some ways this is a valid criticism. But are you really mad just because they don’t look as you envisioned the part, or are you mad just because the person cast has a little bit of Black in them?
Here is another common argument against Black-washing:
“It is culturally inauthentic to have Black mermaids, elves, fairies, black aristocracy, etc. These things are based in White culture.”
To counter this, Folklore and other tales have existed all over the world. Stories surrounding fantasy-like creatures didn’t start with the European diaspora. Furthermore, Black people have existed in all classes of European society due to colonialism. For example, many were upset that a Black man was cast to play Porthos in BBC’s The Musketeers. But did anyone know that the original writer of The Three Musketeers novel, Alexander Dumas, was of Black heritage himself, as well as a General in Napoleon’s army? I’m sure he wouldn’t have minded such a casting choice.
Finally, here is another common argument against Black-washing:
“It is unfair because the actor is being given a role just for the sake of diversity or “woke points”, not because they actually can do the job.”
I can understand this frustration. Even as Black people, we don’t just want to be chosen because we’re Black, becoming the “token” actor. We want our talents to be respected. However, it is a broad assumption to assume that every Black person that was chosen for these roles were simply chosen because they are Black.
Furthermore, various people of a variety of racial backgrounds, especially White people, were and still are simply preferred because of their White features, not their talents, compared to talents across other racial backgrounds. Therefore, this is not exclusively a Black-washing issue. If anything, White-washing occurred as a result of this “White” preference in Hollywood; Black-washing is simply another way of giving Black people the same treatment Hollywood has been giving White people for many years.
On the other hand, whether Black-washing exists or not, Black-washing as a strategy for diversity does have some major issues that I think needs to be discussed.
The Bad: Race-baiting, Whiteface, and Blackface
Blackface is when a white person puts on dark make-up to mock Black people, particularly for comedic purposes. This form of entertainment has been popular for many years. White-washing was often compared to Blackface because many times Hollywood would cast White or lighter actors to play Black people or other people of color, which to many felt disrespectful and conflicted with the experiences of people of color.
So what about “Black-washing”? We can see it as synonymous with Whiteface. Whiteface is a type of performance in which a person wears theatrical makeup in order to make themselves look like a White person. While it doesn’t have the same racist history as Blackface (nor does it have the same level of power or influence over how White people are seen overall), it is meant to represent a caricature of Whiteness and White people’s way of being. Whenever I watch movies that have a Black-washed cast, I can’t help but feel like the Black actors are playing a caricature of White people. There are certain mannerisms and ways of being that sometimes seem more in line with the way white people navigate society and respond to it. Although skin color doesn’t necessarily come with a set of personality traits, there are certain cultural differences between those across the Afro-diaspora and those within the Euro-diaspora, and that makes “Black-washing” so obvious to those who are viewing it.
Another part of the issue comes with the demand for the Black actors to live up to the expectations of the public’s perception of Whiteness. When a Black person acts as a character that was once white, many people expect the Black actor to capture the White character from head to toe, and so Black actors are often forced to portray themselves EXACTLY as the White character would even without the nuance of the Black experience. They have to speak as a White person would (this is not necessarily about articulation but rather for environmental responses), behave as White people would in certain situations, and often times the nuances of being Black within the story is not mentioned because technically they are playing a White person. It’s as if they live in a post-racist world where they are celebrated. In theory, this is great news and not all stories featuring Black people should be about “the black experience”. Some people may even argue that’s the point of acting; to challenge yourself to behave as someone else.
But it doesn’t come without feeling that this new-found celebration of Blackness in Hollywood is less about colorblindness and more about Black people playing the roles White people are comfortable with. It creates a Hollywood form of cultural assimilation. For example, when we think of a Black princess, what exactly comes to mind? To the eyes of Hollywood, a movie about princesses should include a person acting, dressing, and adorning their hair as a European-inspired princess would because that is what Hollywood’s perception of a princess is: White and/or European.
I wouldn’t see a handful of Black girls in a lead role in cinema until my teens and early 20s. To make a comparison of the two movies I saw as a teen and young adult, one was Akeelah And The Bee (2006); the other was Annie (2014). Akeelah and the Bee was a story about a young girl who discovers she has a knack for spelling. She beats the odds of her underprivileged background to compete in the Scripps National Spelling Bee. In Annie, the movie follows the story of its predecessors where an orphan girl gets lucky enough to be chosen to live with the wealthy Daddy Warbucks, winning the hearts of many. Both actresses did a great job as far as acting goes, and both movies were mildly entertaining for me. When I watched Annie I admit I was excited to see a Black girl on screen as the lead (which I hadn’t seen since Roger’s and Hammerstein’s Cinderella). However, while watching Annie I couldn’t help but compare it to the original movie adaptation, Annie (1982), and all of the other Annie versions before it. While I understand it was meant to be a modern Annie, the only thing this movie had to offer was a “Black face”.
I already had an Annie movie version that I had grown to love long before this new adaptation and I became more critical of the newer movie as a result.
Whereas with Akeelah And The Bee, there was nothing compared to it. It was a one-of-a kind movie and, more importantly, it was an original Black story. You could feel the authenticity based on how it tied in Black culture in such a nuanced way and, yet, gave Akeelah her own personality and interests as an individual. People could watch it and enjoy it for what it was without making a comparison to anything else. Whereas with Annie (2014), if felt as if the Black actors were telling the story of a White girl who happens to have a Black face.
I also wonder: What more does Black-washing offer to Black audiences outside of the skin color of the actors? What more does it showcase to audiences outside of our community about Black people? In the end, most people are going to end up sticking to the more popular “White” versions while the “Black” version of the movie will be wiped from memory as the “knock-off”. Even as I enjoyed “Black-washed” movies like Roger’s and Hammerstein’s Cinderella(1997) or The Wiz(1978), let’s be honest here, these movies are mostly remembered by the Black audience that tuned in to watch in their respective time periods during eras where Black people were a lot less visible than today in movies.
To make multibillion dollar industries and bring in the big box office money, which would help continue Black Hollywood, we have to have something to offer others besides a Black face. Contrary to popular belief, we do not have to do it by imitating White people. Most people in the modern world are looking for new and original story-telling; with an interest in diversity, why are we not taking advantage of this to hop on new ideas and introduce our culture to the world in a fresh, new way?
To add, while “Black-washing” makes some of us feel seen in the moment, will it have the same long-lasting cultural impact, especially in regards to how we see ourselves?
Of course, we can forgive Hollywood executives when they cast Black people as fictional characters, right? These type of characters are usually imagined and so changing their skin color is a matter of taking creative liberties to be more inclusive. This motive is not something I would scorn and sometimes the intentions are good.
However, Black-washing gets murkier when we start to see White historical figures being Black-washed as well. I’m going to examine a good example of this sort of Black-washing: the stage production Hamilton (2015). The Hamilton cast is filled with extremely talented black actors that capture the characters in quite an entertaining and charming way. I admit that I enjoyed watching it on stage and the talent was inspirational to say the least. To be honest, I even have forgotten that the characters they were portraying were White historical figures.
And that is sort of the problem. These White people, while they shaped he USA in many ways, were also slave owners and they could care less about Black people in their lifetime. So while the cast does a celebratory job of playing these roles, they still are playing White slave owners and colonists. Putting a Black face on these kinds of figures makes us sympathize with them more, I suppose. Yet, it makes us ignore what the actual person did because we see a Black face. We begin to fictionalize the real person because the stage production presented them as Black (even if what they did to Black people was questionable). So the question is, who gets to be celebrated in history, and should Black people be celebrated only when they are acting as white people, especially white people that participated in our oppression?
And that is sort of the problem. These White people, while they shaped he USA in many ways, were also slave owners and they could care less about Black people in their lifetime. So while the cast does a celebratory job of playing these roles, they still are playing White slave owners and colonists. Putting a Black face on these kinds of figures makes us sympathize with them more, I suppose. Yet, it makes us ignore what the actual person did because we see a Black face. We begin to fictionalize the real person because the stage production presented them as Black (even if what they did to Black people was questionable). So the question is, who gets to be celebrated in history, and should Black people be celebrated only when they are acting as white people, especially white people that participated in our oppression?
Understandably, I do believe that there has been a good reason historically for Black-washing. After all, as mentioned before, Black people were excluded from Hollywood after years of racism, and so we would often create movies or spaces that were made to mimic that of White entertainment just to be seen or represented. This was probably the only way Black people could gain visibility back in the past.
However, we are living in the 21st century. I think it is time we progressed past the need for Black-washing. We are one of the most visible minorities on-screen to date. Why do we still hold on to this old idea that the only way to have Black representation is by casting ourselves as White?
In my honest opinion, while I’m always happy to see Black people like myself on screen, I think Black-washing is lazy. It is a lazy way to give people “diversity” without actually giving them a unique story to call their own. There is a perception in Hollywood that black people cannot carry a movie by themselves without the help of White people. There is also the perception that people won’t go see Black-led movies unless the story is already familiar (or in other words Eurocentric). Whiteness is often treated as the “default” and therefore more acceptable and digestible.
In my honest opinion, while I’m always happy to see Black people like myself on screen, I think Black-washing is lazy. It is a lazy way to give people “diversity” without actually giving them a unique story to call their own. There is a perception in Hollywood that black people cannot carry a movie by themselves without the help of White people. There is also the perception that people won’t go see Black-led movies unless the story is already familiar (or in other words Eurocentric). Whiteness is often treated as the “default” and therefore more acceptable and digestible.
Black Panther (2018) was one of the movies to challenge these ideas. Black Panther, while known by most fans of the Marvel comics, was not as well-known among casual movie goers. In this movie, we see an African king of Wakanda and a true Black superhero who protects his own people, without the need of White intervention or European involvement. In this sense, the movie adaptation introduced an all-new story because it was the first adaptation of its kind. This made a bigger difference in the legacy of Black entertainment when we compare it to the White “knock-offs” that Black-washing had to offer. To add, what we also see from Black Panther is culture. Black culture.
The Ugly: The Absence Of Black Culture
There are different ways to Black-wash. Black-washing can come in the form of a Black reimagination of an established property. What I do like about some movies with this approach is that it gives an opportunity to tell a similar story but with a unique “Black” point-of-view, inculcating the rich culture, music, and fashion that comes from the Black community. Take Disney’s The Princess And The Frog (2009), for example. While it can be seen as a “Black-washed” version of its predecessor (a fairy tale of European origin), it has its own way of telling the story that makes it feel unique from the batch of fairy tale movies. It also caters to the sentiments and experiences of Black people. Just for understanding, this is not to say the movie is perfect (there are various flaws with the movie, starting with the creative decision to showcase the Black princess as a frog for most of the movie). However, you can tell that the creators took an interest in Black culture and wanted to inculcate some of our rich heritage into the movie. Unlike Hamilton, this movie celebrates Blackness rather than Whiteness, even if inspired from a European tale. I feel the same way with The Wiz (1978), the Black adaptation of The Wizard Of Oz, where Oz is designed to resemble that of Black urban neighborhoods, music, and culture. In a sense, we as Black people can both relate to it and see ourselves being represented more authentically.
Unfortunately, many movies today are missing the nuances of our culture in them because they are simply casting Black people to play White people. Movies that Black-wash without the nuances of our culture often feel hollow. They give me nothing to look back and be proud of except the fact that the person playing in the role is Black. Trust me, there will be plenty more feats where the “first Black actor” is playing the “first Black something”. This will get old really soon.
Furthermore, when are we going to start embracing stories from Black communities and culture? I want more movies like The Black Panther (2018). I want to see our culture celebrated, our kings or queens honored, our “fairy-tales” or folk tales visible. When are we going to get an Anansi The Spider movie? What about Mufaro’s Beautiful Daughters? There’s so many more Black stories that we need only Google search to find them.
I think about the show Bridgerton (2020-Present). It is a great show with a very diverse cast of characters. However, while the show is progressive in its approach, having as many diverse faces as possible, the styles and attitudes are meant to mimic that of the Regency era in White European society. While this story is based on historical facts (albeit controversially), and it is being produced through a Black-owned entertainment company (even if the writers of the show are mostly white), that doesn’t take away the fact that the inspiration of this show and most shows and movies are always focused on Europe. Why so Eurocentric? Many of these actors will be praised only when they are acting in roles that reflect European culture or aristocracy while movies that reflect other cultures are often criticized as being somehow “stereotypical” or less “universal” to audiences.
Ultimately, it feels as if we are more eager to praise this form of cultural assimilation rather than embrace cultural diversity and liberation. In a story like Bridgerton, we can pretend that people of color were equal to that of White people in those societies. We can ignore the racist history behind people of color at court, how they had to cut off family ties to be seen as more “White” in society, and dismiss their culture to assimilate to a European way of life. We can more easily see Black people in power when the backdrop is European because Whiteness and European values represent power in our minds. We can even ignore the atrocities that occur even within the story of Bridgerton towards people of color, such as when Daphne (a white woman) decides to force Simon, a black man, to have intercourse with her to get what she wants and gets away with it, especially in the book, which the series adaptation is based on. Amongst the beautiful scenery and European-style costumes, we can pretend that this is what true diversity looks like.
Hollywood champions diversity when it comes to casting, but many of the White producers and directors there don’t actually have enough interest in diversity to delve into a culture that is not their own. No, they should not be able to use the excuse that they don’t know enough about other cultures because the opportunity is there to hire advisors or even have some of the actors give advice. Yet, Black-washing gives them the easiest way out because they believe that black people are desperate and accepting of their scraps. The truth is that many of the major producers in Hollywood are not interested in expanding their interest. Black-washing is simply another way for them to brush the issue under the rug, with very little effort to include diversity, especially when many of them are reluctant to recruit creative thinkers from even a small number of people from underrepresented groups behind the scenes.
Despite a major increase of Black people in media, what has been staggering is the amount of Black showrunners. Black screenwriters and directors are also very few. In 2017 alone, only 5.1% of showrunners were reported to be Black. Many of the Black people that are on-set sometimes don’t even honestly get a say in how the characters are created, not even when it comes to the creation of Black people in fiction.
As Cord Jefferson, writer of The Good Place (2016-2020), put it: “Something that happens a lot when it comes to diversity in Hollywood ― and everywhere else ― is that people will just populate the room with people of color or queer people or women but not really respect those people’s voices or pay attention to what they’re saying. It feels like you’re diversity decoration a little bit, as opposed to a valuable member of the team.”
Executives mistakenly believe that simply having a “racial-neutral” cast or staff is the best way to add more diversity. As we can see, that only addresses the problem of diversity superficially. When I see a movie that Black-washes in this sort of “color-blind” way, I become very skeptical of the intentions. I do recognize that some producers or casting directors simply want to show talent without discrimination, but this method makes it seem as if they do not actually care who they cast in the role. This is why we get diverse-looking characters, but an absence of diverse story-telling.
Abbott Elementary, a TV series that focuses on a predominately Black school and its teachers, manages to highlight Black characters in a way Black people, especially educators, can relate because of its authenticity. To date, Abbott Elementary has the best comedy ratings on ABC since Modern Family, even in a time when streaming services dominate traditional cable TV. What makes the show fantastic is that it is not “color-blind”. It is an original story with the intent of showcasing what it is like to work with Black children in a low-income area. Despite the fact that the show does not focus on White people (even with a handful of White people in the show), it still manages to relate to people of various backgrounds. The show didn’t have to be a Black version of an established “White” series nor did the show have to focus on White culture’s influence on Black people.
Instead, what makes this show appealing is that it is an authentic Black story, and because the cast is predominately Black, we don’t have to rely on “token” Black voices to get a full picture of what being Black is like. Through the characters of this show, we can see a variety of attitudes and feelings that can relate to anyone who is a teacher or has ever taught in a low-income school. The show also doesn’t have to shy away from Black culture in order to avoid stereotyping. Instead, it approaches stereotypes in a nuanced way, allowing for Black audiences to recognize themselves while relating to a variety of characters who approach these topics differently. While the show draws inspiration from the other mocumentary-style comedies before it, viewers can feel the intention was to tell a Black story. The best part is it is written by a Black person (Quinta Brunson).
This is what I’m hoping will happen in the future when companies are dealing with Black movies and shows. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being inspired from European stories nor do I think it is wrong to cast more people of color. However, I think we need to do better when it comes to recognizing Black people outside of the face alone, taking on the opportunity to also show respect for where we come from and exploring that experience to make more authentic Black content.
As far as acting as historical figures, we don’t have to be honored in White history in order to prove that we are a part of history. Believe it or not, Black people have our own history outside of the White European diaspora. We have had kingdoms. We have had Gods. We have had heroes and villains. But how will other generations know or understand this if all they have to see is a White interpretation of Blackness or culturally assimilated Blackness? Black-washing in Hollywood might give us temporary excitement and representation, but will it give us something to look back on that will make us proud to be who we are for a lifetime? I honestly do not think so.
I want to know what you all think. Do you think “Black-washing” is beneficial or is the concept regressive? Do you think it actually exists or is it just all in our heads?
The USA has always had two different political divisions driving the debate: Conservatives and Right-Wing Republicans and Liberal and Left-Wing Democrats. The Conservatives in the USA want to preserve the old ways of doing things, upholding honored traditions, and most of their beliefs are motivated by religion, the need to maintain comfort and security, and familial or generational teachings. Most Right-Wing Republicans tend to support Conservatives, as they might have other old-fashioned political ideologies that they believe would be best supported through Conservatives. For many Conservatives, this over-turn is a victory because they believe that this will ensure protections for, what they see, as “un-born babies”. The Liberals in the USA want society to progress socially, they want to challenge the established system, and most of their beliefs are motivated by negative personal experiences. Most Left-Wing Democrats tend to support Liberals, as they may have other progressive ideologies that they believe would be best supported through Liberals. For Liberals, the over-turn is seen as the end of people’s choices over their own bodies.
“State laws banning or severely restricting abortion access fell into three broad categories: 1) “trigger bans,” which ban abortion under most circumstances and go into effect with the fall of Roe; 2) pre-Roe bans, which are old laws still on the books that could now be enforced; and 3) more recently passed laws that limit abortion to an early gestational age or ban it nearly totally. Some states had passed laws in more than one of these categories.” -Npr’s Sarah McCammon
The argument that many Conservatives and Republicans often make regarding why this decision is important usually involves their own personal ethics and morals. Does an un-born baby have the right to live, even when it is inside the body of a woman as a fetus like all of the other cells? For many Conservatives and Republicans, the answer is yes, and with this idea comes the belief that abortion is another form of murder. They also make the argument that we have a variety of contraceptive methods, which is supposed to mean that, for many people, there should be no need for abortion. They even believe that banning or restricting abortion will slow unprotected sex, slow teen pregnancy rates (even though they are lower than ever before), and encourage responsible parenthood.
As for the Liberal take on abortion, it’s a matter of protecting freedom in a country founded on that promise. Does a woman have the right to choose what happens to her body during pregnancy? For many Democrats and Liberals, the answer is yes, and many of them believe that restricting abortion rights is the end of liberty. Many Liberals and Democrats believe that abortion rights give people the choice over their lives. Many Liberals also argue that it is because of more access to abortion healthcare that teen pregnancies have decreased. Many also believe that abortion rights save many victims of sexual assault or rape from a lifetime of mental and physical trauma from carrying the child of their assaulters. And it seems like the government is more focused on punishing pregnant girls and women, who could be potential victims of assault, instead of focusing on creating harsher sentences for those who have sexually abused women and girls.
I believe that when making the argument regarding ethics, this issue will always be divided because we can only question who is more important: the un-born child or the living women and girls who will be forced to carry them?
Adding to the polarizing debate surrounding morals and ethics, I want to also address this from a practical point-of-view.
What Will This Mean For Miscarriages?
Many Republican legislators and Conservatives may not be privy to the fact that miscarriages are a lot more common among women than abortions. A Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of an embryo or fetus during pregnancy. This can happen before 20 weeks of pregnancy, with 8 out of 10 happening within 3 months of pregnancy. Miscarriages can happen at any moment and for a variety of reasons.
Another thing to consider is this: Will people who experience a miscarriage be subjected to criminal charges? In Oklahoma, a woman by the name of Brittany Poolaw was convicted of manslaughter charges and was sentenced to four years in prison because she had a miscarriage. With the end of Roe v. Wade, and some national bans on abortion starting to take effect in some states, will this mean that every woman that experiences a miscarriage could be also be accused and tried by a criminal court or at least suspected of murder? It would be nice if more Republican legislators were more thoughtful about these circumstances because, as the ban sweeps the nation, even the most Republican-friendly, Conservative women may experience this outcome while pregnant.
What About Young Victims Of Forced Pregnancy?
Many Conservatives and Republicans have argued that pregnancy happens mostly as a result of “irresponsibility”. In states like Missouri, they ignore or overlook the effects of rape or sexual assault, and don’t believe it gives any woman or girl reason for abortion, stating “It’s still a baby’s life”. They also argue that forced pregnancy is an outlier. The idea here is that a “woman” must carry the baby full term, no matter what her physical situation, medical conditions, mental conditions, financial situation, or age.
Would surgeries that help women with varying uterine issues also be held under suspicion?
Some conservatives believe that these situations are a lot more rare in a modern society. However, the end of Roe v Wade could mean an increase of these conditions as abortion rights often gave women the choice to avoid these issues. People might argue that sexual abuse and medical issues are “rare circumstances” that shouldn’t influence our sentiments, but shouldn’t our laws cover even the rarest of circumstances, all of the “nooks and crannies”, so that conversations like this don’t ever have to come up again? After all, turning, over-turning, and turning legislation back and forth leads to confusion, makes enforcing laws challenging, and weakens citizens’ faith in the established laws. That just leads to anarchy.
When having conversations regarding birth and the health of a patient, mental health is often overlooked. However, mental health risks are just as important when examining the outcome of both the parent and children born. Postpartum depression is also a very difficult situation to endure, especially for young mothers. Those who develop postpartum depression are at greater risk of developing major depression later on in life. In the last decade, risks of suicide among pregnant mothers have only increased. Aside from postpartum depression, there are many women with a variety of behavioral or mental disorders (such as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, Schizophrenia, etc), and unintended pregnancies would only worsen some of their conditions. Shouldn’t a woman who is mentally ill have a choice? Mental disorders often do affect the way a baby is cared for inside the body of a woman.
In states that do not allow for exceptions, a person that has terminal medical issues such as Cancer or HIV/AIDS would have to carry their children full-term. They would have severe issues with delivery and the child would have a higher likelihood of being born with the same medical issues as their parents. Parents with physical disabilities or impairment may also find themselves having the same issues with delivery.
Did I mention that Covid-19, a contagious respiratory disease that first swept the nation a little more than a year ago, still exists? Pregnancy increases the chances of catching severe illnesses, like Covid-19, and the symptoms that come from harsh diseases like that can have long-term effects on a baby as well, according to the CDC.
What about contraceptives? Even the birth control pills and shots have some serious side effects that can include heart attacks, stroke, blood clots, and tumors just to name a few. Even when taking these types of contraceptives, pregnancy can still occur no matter how regularly or correctly you might take these contraceptives. This is also the same case for condoms, in which breakages are very common.
Some may argue that perhaps hysterectomies or tubal ligation are options for women. However, these invasive surgeries are much more costly and, in most cases, they would be irreversible where a woman would never be able to make the choice to have a child.
Instead, what we may see is an increase in riskier means of getting abortions, which would be synonymous to what had often occurred before Roe v. Wade. What, you thought abortions were new?
Keeping personal financial situations in mind, what about the national economic state of things to date? What about the current inflation crisis? There couldn’t have been a worse time to over-turn federally protected abortion rights with the rising cost of living and a shortage in supplies, including baby supplies. Hey, they could have at least waited until the economy was more stabilized to enact such a drastic change in legislation. Instead, they had no consideration for the number of people who may be pregnant, but are no longer able to provide for babies due to America’s post-pandemic economic turmoil.
While some states are allowing for abortions, the cost to travel or move to these states may not make this a viable option for low-income people. Many businesses still do not have adequate maternity leave policies in place, either, so the ban in many states will mean that many people will risk being laid-off or terminated from employment in order to carry a baby full-term or travel for abortions. Many clinics are closing, which makes travel decisions unpredictable. Speaking of which, many employees of abortion clinics may potentially be unemployed themselves, as many locations are set to close in the coming months. This will only add to an unemployment rate in the U.S.A that hasn’t had much of a turn-around since the Covid-19 pandemic.
Of course, many might believe that because “adoption” is available, there is an easy way out. However, we have to consider the cost of carrying and delivering a child, which includes medical bills that many without adequate healthcare coverage would not be able to handle. Even with adequate healthcare coverage, it can be pretty expensive. After all, this country is one of the few developed nations without universal healthcare. Perhaps, it would have been more beneficial to provide a better healthcare system before throwing out abortion rights and subsequently leaving people to fend for themselves regarding pregnancy.
People also forget that bringing a baby into the world would require the mother to be able to afford to feed, clothe, and house herself properly while carrying a child. Healthcare insurance doesn’t cover that. Many of the same people voting against abortion are also the same people who want to avoid pouring tax money into programs for mothers who can’t take care of themselves while pregnant. The situation is often made worse within families that already have four or more children. Adding another baby to enlarged families could affect the resources available for the other children, and it could also affect their mental and emotional health.
And what about the issues surrounding the foster care system? According to USA adoption statistics, placing and monitoring children brings the state and federal expenditures at $9 billion. Many children never get adopted and remain in the adoption system for many years. As many as 117,000 children are still waiting to be adopted with many of them being disproportionately African-American. The adoption process is no easy task with many children being misplaced from home to home in order to find perfect families for them. This is costly on the country. To add, 80% of children in foster care have significant mental health issues which the state also pays for in the millions. With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, funding could become more necessary, making childcare more expensive to the point the USA, as a nation, would have to pay more for it through taxes.
There is also population growth to consider. America is one of the most populated countries in the world. Over-population often causes a shortage in resources and other environmental issues. Abortion access has been helpful in regulating population growth, but, with the ban in some states, this could mean that our population may see a significant increase that we are not prepared to handle financially.
What about child support? About 50.2% of people have child support arrangements, mostly affecting men. In 2015, the most recent data on child support, showed that at least $33.7 billion were reported to be due. The amount of people owing child support would more than likely increase, with debt affecting low-income individuals even more.
Socioeconomic disparities often leads to a high rise in crime. Where abortion would give women and men an opportunity to live their lives and build wealth so that they CAN prepare properly for a baby, instead the over-turn will cause women and men in impoverished circumstances to have no way out.
What If “Legislative Loopholes” Affect Other Rights?
Roe v. Wade was possible as a constitutional right through the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Amendment is as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Many Conservatives and Republicans have argued that this Amendment protects unborn babies, despite the fact that this amendment only mentions that persons who are born have the right to life, liberty, or property. By taking away abortion rights, several states are now taking away a born woman’s right to life and liberty. The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of liberty under the Due Process Clause grants the right over bodily autonomy. This is especially so in states where there are no exceptions for medical issues or abuse. In the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, it states The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states.
In this sense, it is unconstitutional to ban abortion, but because it doesn’t “specifically” say abortion, the GOP has decided that it has found a “loophole” in order to restrict the right to life and liberty, restricting people’s choices, over their own bodies medically. Despite the argument that abortion is “murder”, arguably abortion is a form of self-defense; Even for the healthiest individuals, pregnancy is always a risky situation and procedure. Abortion provides protection from unintended invaders within the body that could cause medical issues for the host. Yet, by taking away abortion rights we have denied many people “equal protection” under the law.
Of course, when it comes to our constitution many of the things written can only be interpreted through a modern lens. After all, the writings are based on hundreds of years of legislation. Abortion, as a practice, was not properly understood by the men who wrote it. In fact, many parts of our constitution are not as clearly outlined as many would think.
For example, the Second Amendment is supposed to give all citizens “the right to bear arms”. Many Conservatives often turn to this Amendment when thinking about the protection of gun rights. However, “arms” can mean ANY weapon, which means the 2nd amendment doesn’t have to include the protections of weapons that are deemed especially more dangerous, such as guns or bombs. What if legislators took advantage of this “loophole” to take away your right to carry a gun? What if they decided to over-turn District of Columbia v. Heller because the 2nd Amendment does not specify that guns specifically can be used? How far will we go to restrict the freedom or liberty to protect ourselves, using “loopholes” as a means of doing so? Even the First Amendment that is supposed to give us the freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly, and petition is a little too vague, and many “loopholes” have been found in order to suppress even some of our First Amendment rights. Do we want to live in a country where anything we say or do could land us in jail?
The greatest question many have is whether or not states with abortion bans throughout the country can be well-regulated. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated“. Of course, this amendment can also be reinterpreted for the sake of criminalizing abortion. Would we have policemen acting as a gestapo or will we ensure that every woman who even LOOKS pregnant be monitored by an FBI taskforce in these states? Will we expect neighbors to turn on neighbors, or families to turn on families, if they even suspect that a miscarriage is actually an abortion? Will we have an influx of women and their families fleeing to already overcrowded states or even fleeing across the border to other countries where there is more freedom?
Before you believe that these things will never happen, remember that these “loopholes” have been used throughout history to excuse slavery and Jim Crow Laws, to restrict voting rights of people who didn’t own property and who were just women and people of color by nature, and allowed laws to prohibit same-sex marriage (or even same-sex relationships for that matter). We also cannot forget that the last time something was banned (the prohibition of alcohol), it it became very costly for the country, difficult to regulate, and was repealed as an Amendment. Even the national campaign of a “war on drugs”, launched by U.S. President Nixon in the early 1970s, has been proven to be futile in halting the illegal drug trade and has led to more incarcerations than ones based on rape or murder due to police focusing on drugs rather than other more severe criminal investigations. One can only predict that the same will be true of abortions, just based on history. As George Santayana’s published book The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human Progress states: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The U.S.A. is unfortunately the only developed country that has outright bans of abortion in place. Our abortion rights resemble that of the developing nation Mexico, the restrictive country of Russia, North Korea, as well as Iran, and to some degree matches that of less developed nations. This says a lot about the current GOP’s perception of freedom and what is left to become of what used to be the United States Of America. Even China, the country Americans use as an example of countries with “no rights”, has NO restrictions on abortion whatsoever. At this point in history, America is only pretending to be the land of the free, when other developed nations such as The Netherlands, Canada, Iceland, The United Kingdom, France, Finland, Australia, Kosovo, Israel, and many more have the freedom and right to abortion with very little restrictions or lack of access. A country where there are no rights is not the America I would like to see. Even if we should emulate the countries with tougher abortion restrictions, as mentioned before, we do not have universal healthcare offered to pregnant women as would be found in many other countries.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan put it in perspective: “Young women today will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers.”
In Conclusion
Before our government made the choice to end federal protections surrounding people’s right to abortion, the government should have focused on providing harsher sentences to proven sex offenders, better healthcare in the nation (especially for women who are pregnant and children), better food and housing options for homeless women and children, and mental healthcare initiatives: things that can lead to the drastic decision to abort. Abortion is not an easy decision to make for any pregnant person. If, as a country, we could focus on making life better for women and children, then abortion would not even be necessary. Otherwise, as it stands, the decision to over-turn Roe v. Wade is like putting a band-aid on a greater wound. If you are “pro-life”, ask yourself: “Do I care more about the quantity of life or the quality of life?”
On a positive note, abortion rates have actually decreased over the years due to more sex education, better birth control methods, and women having more choices regarding careers as well. So with or without the ban, it won’t be as felt for women who are privileged enough to have the decision to choose. Who it will most affect are the innocent and vulnerable, such as children and women of abuse.
Women and people who are biologically capable of giving birth never chose to be born that way. The least we could do is give them the right to protect their bodies from harm and live their life the way they choose while they are here. It’s one thing to regulate abortion in a way that balances the life of an unborn baby with the life of the woman or girls of America. It’s an entirely different thing to enact a ban on something that cannot always be biologically controlled, regardless of health risk or circumstance. Can the government honestly control or regulate the functions of a body that is not their own, even from a practical point of view? Unlike the call to control drugs, guns, and alcohol, where the call for bans are involving or once involved external objects that can be regulated, this ban involves the natural human body and it puts many people at risk for being tried or jailed even for things they cannot control: the outcome of a fetus inside the womb of a pregnant person. Whether through medical abortion or natural causes, this kind of legislation will only cause more trouble than it’s worth.
Do you think the over-turn of Roe v. Wade was a bad decision from the GOP? Do you believe that it will have adverse effects on women across political lines? Or do you believe abortion is unconstitutional and that states have a right to ban abortion? Let me know in the comments’ section what you all think.
There are several definitions of feminism out here:
The advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes (Google.com)
A range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. (Wikipedia.org)
The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Refers to any ideology that seeks total equality in rights for women and people who self-identify as women, usually through improving the status of females. (RationalWiki.org)
With the above definitions in clear view, we can conclude that overall the feminist movement is calling for equal rights for women, for anyone who identifies as women to be seen as equals to men, and for women’s “roles” in society to be respected. Some feminists even define feminism as something that helps both sexes achieve equal rights.
I feel that all women can and have benefited from feminism in their own ways. We can’t deny that. Feminism has been a movement that has existed since the 1800s (when the first suffragists rounded up and organized their movement to push for the right to vote). And these movements have shaped the “feminine” identity to this very day.
All women who work, go to school, have sexual relations freely, chose their partners, wear short skirts, pants, and shorts, speak their minds on the internet, and vote should thank the efforts of both peaceful and radical feminists. Women today can’t help but be feminists. As Oprah Winfrey put it, “I don’t think you can really be a woman in this world and not be.” I completely agree with this statement.
I myself, as an African American woman, continue to benefit from the movement. I work, I’ve graduated from college, I have assumed a leadership role, I write this blog to speak my mind publicly, I’m single and love it, I adore androgynous clothing, and I have interests not assumed by most women (such as loving to play video games).
However, I believe it is possible to benefit from feminism, to support equal rights, without agreeing with what every feminist says or thinks. Not all feminists have the same intentions regarding feminism, and it is safe to say that “Third-wave” feminism (modern feminism), the feminism that exists today, has taken a completely different turn.
Julienne Davis, a feminist writer, spoke out about the “third-wave” of feminists in her article “How Did Feminism Get Hijacked By Man-Haters”. Her article inspired me to write this one.
Many feminists are very effective when it comes to pushing women towards a more “inclusive” future. This article is not for those women who really and truly want to help all women.
I want to assume that most feminists have good intentions, but based on some articles and comments I’ve read on the internet, in books, and in essays written by those who were associated or identified as feminists, I can definitely see why some people are no longer taking the feminist movement as seriously and why some women don’t even want to be associated with the movement.
After searching around, I’ve discovered 8 Types of feminists that not only irritate me, and others, but make us all literally sick. In no particular order, I will discuss what is so irritating about them.
I felt this was important to talk about first because it has increasingly been affecting movies, music, music videos, video games, and even TOYS.
There are two reasons why the “slut-shamers” make me sick:
They fail to understand the historical sexual restriction placed on women and how that continues to impact women.
Their nit-picking to producers has been effective in limiting female artistic expression and creative female representation in media and other entertainment avenues.
Many feminists are against the exploitation, objectification, and over-sexualization of women, particularly when done by men. I can understand this well. Obviously, women don’t want to be looked at as “objects”, as tools of men, and want to be respected beyond their appearances. Mutual consent is an important topic as well as how sexuality in media influences young girls, who normally aren’t ready to handle the consequences that come with a sexual identity and sexual experience. Of course, mothers don’t want to encourage their daughters to sexually exploit themselves and they want to get a hold of teen pregnancies (which is said to claim over 700,000 teen girls a year). Teen pregnancy affects a female’s body and socioeconomic conditions severely. I get this.
But I can see why the “Feminist Sex Wars” ensued. There has to be some sort of balance, where women are both in control of their sexuality as well as free to express it.
These Feminists Set Us Back to the 19th Century
For centuries before the 1920s, sexuality was considered strictly for men. In fact, doctors in the 19th century believed that women felt “little or no sexual desire, and that only abnormal or ‘pathological’ women felt strong sexual desire” (“Women in Literature”, Kimberly M. Radek-Hall, 2001).
However, once women began to openly speak about their own sexualities, their right to choose their own sexual partners, and their right to express their sexuality “creatively” or in entertainment, men apparently seemed too “on-board” with this transition, to the point women became looked at as sexual objects by some men. That’s when the new wave of feminists began to debate whether women should be “sex-positive” or “anti-pornographic”.
I personally feel that the feminist movement should support all women. With that being said, I believe that women should have the right to express themselves in any way they like IF they are at a responsible age to handle the consequences. Each woman should be in charge of her “image” towards men or anyone else. If she wants to be looked at as an “object” by men or admired for her body, who are we to tell her she can’t? Or if she just wants to wear less clothing because she lives in a warm climate or because she wants to show off the latest fashion artistically, who are we to tell her she’s wrong? If we are at a point where we believe women should be on the same social plane as men, we should extend those rights we give to men that we give to women.
In fact, I feel we slut-shame women more than we do men, when statistics show that there are more teen dads out here than teen moms, and with more than one child! So much more so, in fact, that they can’t even keep a consistent count! And men are not shamed or protected by their families. I feel it would be more useful to try to get control of these young men because, apparently, they have the issue here! But if we are not going to say or do anything about our sons, why even try with our daughters? We can’t limit one side of the spectrum without limiting the other.
I especially find it to be super judgmental and contradictory to try to control what a female wears by shaming her into fitting another woman’s standards of beauty and decency. For many slut-shaming feminists, acting sexually isn’t the worst part. Dressing “sexually” is condemned by these feminists as well.
I can understand if someone wants to restrict a child from wearing revealing, see-through clothing and walking around as if she wants male attention. Obviously, a child is not mature enough to advertise herself in that manner. But a grown woman, with her own job, house, and car is old enough to do what she wants with herself. She’s fully prepared to handle the consequences, and no one should stop her from doing what she wants.
And some of these feminists define “sexualized fashion” as a tank top and shorts. These are the feminists that won’t let up on females even if it was 100 degrees outside!
They fail to understand that what one person finds “modest” and “beautiful” is not going to be the same for another person. They fail to understand that climate and weather impacts the way a woman dresses. And they fail to understand that styles always change.
Before the 1920s, a one-piece bathing suit was considered indecent. Now, these slut-shaming feminists have suddenly become accepting of it. Why? Women show more skin in a bathing suit than they do in shorts and a tank top! But a mini skirt is worse than a one-piece bathing suit?
These feminists are even coming after the cheerleaders, claiming that no one can see the girls as “well-rounded” people because they’re just valued for their skimpy appearances. People ignore the tremendous amount of athleticism, determination, and talent that it takes to be a cheerleader. Especially when it comes to football, many cheerleaders are major sports fans, family members to some of the athletes, or simply had a dream of dancing. There’s more to it than “skimpy outfits”. That’s not the primary reason many women choose to be professional cheerleaders. The so-called “skimpy” outfits allow the cheerleaders to move around more. Yes, many of the women might be admired for their appearances and may enjoy that aspect, but this doesn’t mean others don’t see the other values they have, especially if they are able to do back-flips, hand stands, and pyramids.
Even gymnasts are attacked by some of these feminists for being in an “objectifying” sport. I guess the “skimpy” leotards needed to perform such athletic stunts are just too much for these women.
There is also this fear of female “self-objectification”. “Self-objectification” is “when the objectifying gaze is turned inward, such that women view themselves through the perspective of an observer and engage in chronic self-surveillance” or the other definition is”regular exposure to objectifying experiences that socializes girls and women to engage in self-objectification, whereby they come to internalize this view of themselves as an object or collection of body parts” . Basically, the woman is too aware of her appearance and how it influences others, and society has something to do with it. The study The Relationship between Female Self-objectification and Extra-curricular Activities by Tanjare’ C. McKay produces an online survey to try to see the relationship between extra-curricular activities and “self-objectification”. They were particularly looking at extra-curricular activities that seemed to “objectify” women’s bodies, such as ballet, gymnastics, dance, and cheerleading.
Would you like to know the results of that study?
The purpose of this study was to examine self-objectification among female students who participated in an extra-curricular activity here at Eastern Michigan University. Undergraduate females were [to] be offered the opportunity to take an online questionnaire that assessed extracurricular activities, self-objectification, mood, body shame and appearance anxiety. It was hypothesized that females who participated in activities where the body as beauty was a major component would have a higher self-objectification, whereas females who participated in sports where the body as function was the major emphasis would have lower levels of self-objectification. Our study hypotheses were not supported and, in fact self-objectification was lower in activities thought to foster self-objectification. The reasons for this are unknown but would make an interesting future study.
Basically, women in those “objectifying” sports did not have any higher self-objectification than any other women. In fact, many of these sports revealed LESS self-objectification. Gee, I wonder why. I can take a very good guess. Women do the things they ENJOY. These sports, for them, are every bit about the activity itself as it is about the cute outfits they get to wear.
So, my overall conclusion to this point is that the real issue isn’t about how women are socialized but how MEN are socialized. It doesn’t matter if a woman was wearing skimpy clothes or fully dressed. If men are groomed to value only her body and nothing else, that’s what he’ll do. We need to focus more on that problem than what women are wearing.
I worked with a Muslim woman. She was fully covered, but she was well-dressed. Her outfits had some splashes of color and she would have a matching headscarf and shoes. Well, during the summer, she came with this beautiful white and turquoise hijab, matching long loose tunic, and matching loose trousers or pants. She had white sandals. It was close to a very special celebration for Muslim people. ALL of the men in the building were talking about how beautiful she was. ALL of them. She even gave a lecture, and all they kept talking about was how GORGEOUS she was!
Men will objectify because men are ALLOWED to, while women are condemned from expressing themselves because they will “tempt” the man. He’s never held accountable, it’s all her fault. In my opinion, this is a dangerous mindset because it makes women responsible for men’s actions and punishes them on behalf of men. I don’t agree with it.
Sure, it irritated me when my mother would criticize my boyish looks and tell me, “You can’t keep a man looking and acting like a boy all the time.” Still, I don’t blame my mother for feeling that way. She’s not feeling that way out of thin air. This came from her experience with men.
Again, why should women have to stop wearing bright colors, jewelry, or showing more skin because it makes men-folk feel uncomfortable?
Then, there’s the issue with their “attack” on makeup. I can understand that in our culture, women have too many expectations on them to look beautiful. I understand that feminists should push for women to be more natural. And for those women who want to be all-natural, I think it’s a great stand.
However, we shouldn’t condemn a woman who likes to wear makeup, and we especially shouldn’t assume they want male attention and that they are “sluts”.
Makeup has been worn by people (not just women) for centuries, even in the Egyptian empire. Men and women in South Korea wear makeup. It is an art form. Makeup can express many different feelings at one time. People who enjoy art enjoy makeup. But these slut-shaming feminists often lack an appreciation for art. Makeup is just associated with “sexualization” and “the search for male attention”.
It’s worse when these women are guilty of the same things they condemn other women for.
Instead of focusing on how women are dressing or how much makeup they’re wearing, maybe we should be focusing on the men who only see these women as sex objects and work on getting them some mental help instead.
Next, I want to talk about pole dancing, prostitution, and erotic dancing.. I do understand that coerced or forced prostitution (prostitution for money as a result of poverty, rape, pimp rings, etc) and sex trafficking are both dangerous and horrible ways for women to live. These issues should be addressed. But if a woman decides she wants to become a prostitute, and use her tricks to create a business, why shouldn’t she? I don’t think this should be illegal and I don’t think we should judge these women or men. They aren’t harming anyone, they’re just trying to make money using the only resource they can at the moment (even if that “resource” is their body). I mean, it’s their body and no one else’s. We talk about women having more control of their bodies. That’s their decision. I’m not going to judge a woman because she enjoys being a porn star or because she enjoys making money from it as long as she’s an adult or at a responsible age where she understands the consequences, such as pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.
The SWERFS believe that prostitution came from an “oppressive patriarchal” society. They believe it emerged at a time when women couldn’t make enough money to feed themselves and so resulted to giving up their bodies and being sex objects to get paid. But if we really think about it, just about everything a modern woman does and wants to do came out of a “patriarchal” society. Jobs like being a secretary, homemaker (stay-at-home moms), and maids came out of an oppressive patriarchal society, and yet we don’t suddenly condemn them or exclude them, even though those jobs put women in submissive roles. So why condemn porn stars or prostitutes just because they have jobs that came out of an oppressive patriarchal society? And if the women enjoy doing it, why comment at all?
No it’s not okay for a child to make that decision. No, it’s not okay for a woman to be black-mailed, coerced, or forced into prostitution. However, if she PERSONALLY organizes her business and picks her clients, I’m not mad at her. I personally don’t want to live that life (then again I’m even allergic to dating), but it’s her life. Let’s not forget.
I also want to add that female prostitutes are often more criticized than the men who are actively participating in it. They are more villainized than male prostitutes. Some countries have a ban on female prostitutes, but no such restrictions on men. Society often wants to punish women for trying to make a living from prostitution instead of actively seeking to change society so that poor women have other options.
Slut-Shaming Feminists Have Destroyed Artistic Expression
Though both sides are in the war, the “anti-pornographic” feminists have mostly dominated in the 21st century, influencing movies, tv shows (like the Powerpuff Girls), music videos (like Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj), video games (like Tomb Raider), and even toys (like Bratz, Barbie, Betty Spaghetty, and even Monster High).
In most cases, too, these kinds of feminists take their criticisms too far. As a major toy and animation fan, I have personally witnessed how slut-shaming feminists have destroyed amazing, creative, and empowering doll lines, fun video games with iconic characters, and lovable cartoons with their nit-picking.
While I admit that Tomb Raider‘s Lara Croft gives an above-average body portrayal (more on this later), she’s also pretty daring and edgy, really showing that women are capable of anything. It’s no different from the body portrayals of Captain America, Superman, or Thor (which women ironically support and “eat” up). Yet, the feminists picked at the Tomb Raider video game so long and so hard, the producers had to alter this iconic character. Many people claim that it had nothing to do with feminists, but we all know feminists have been complaining about that game (and many others) for years now. I don’t understand. What’s wrong with a woman who has a big chest? Some women have it, some don’t. So what? She’s not meant to look real, just like Superman and Thor.
Next…
While the Bratz dolls have been known to wear some of the most outrageous fashions and makeup, they have broken many fashion molds for a doll line. While most girls are expected to look “cute” and “modest”, the Bratz dolls have proven that a passion for fashion and breaking molds can be just as empowering. They were targeted for a tween to teen audience, and didn’t mind dressing like rock stars, jungle queens, Tokyo tourists, you name it. Makeup was used as an art form on the dolls. The Bratz never cared about the social rules. They never let these restrictive “standards” define them. Until the slut-shaming feminists got a hold of them.
Ironically, Bratz dolls have been one of few that have been respected by a male audience. While most of the males did focus on the “fashion” that the Bratz wore, most never looked at them as “sex icons”. They had big heads and big feet; they looked too much like cartoon characters to have been taken as the same sexual models we see in Playboy or Sports Illustrated magazines. Many males have stated that they liked the Bratz dolls because “they [were] unique and appealing”, “unique, cute, adorable, and wonderful”, “the look, the fashion, and the movies and episodes”, and the “high-quality clothes”. To most males, the Bratz are “unique”, well-dressed, with good movies and shows, not overtly “feminine” and “girl-centered” like other doll lines. None of the guys think these dolls are “hot” or “sexy”, but rather bold and original. So, the only ones seeing the “sexualization” of these dolls are feminists. The rest of us are seeing the sass, the boldness, and their girl power.
From what angle do these feminists draw their conclusion? I grew up with Bratz. Am I a prostitute? No. Was I a teen mom? No. And my vision of the Bratz as a tween was that they were strong, bold, and passionate, ready to take the world by storm (similar to how I saw the Spice Girls). It would’ve been different if they were designed as sexy, attractive girlfriends for a line of male dolls. But the Bratz never portrayed themselves nor never have been portrayed as sex icons, not by males, not by fans, not by anybody. I see more sexual innuendos out there for My Little Pony than I do the Bratz. And what is wrong with having a passion for fashion? Didn’t anyone get the memo that the fashion industry is dominated by male designers? We need to encourage our ladies to think outside of the box, to be the inventors, the designers, the inspiration behind everything. We should be encouraging girls to push the envelope, to explore their passions.
Even young ladies today (the ladies who haven’t been brainwashed by these feminists’ propaganda) can clearly understand that the Bratz are an example of “self-expression” through fashion, and these dolls boldly announce that women can show skin (artistically) without necessarily trying to be attractive to a MAN. I have yet to speak with any tweens or teens that referred to the Bratz as “sexy”. You can see this from some of the comments on Youtube and other SNS websites dedicated to the Bratz. The only people who don’t seem to understand that are the slut-shaming feminists. They want to believe there’s some deep-seated misogynistic feelings these young ladies are “inheriting”… I hardly call the Bratz a form of “male hate” or “male supremacy”, but imagine whatever unicorns you want, my dear.
Moving along…
I want to talk about the new re-vamped Powerpuff Girls cartoon and the controversy regarding Ms. Bellum. I understand that Ms. Bellum’s design was just a body in a sexy suit without a face. But she actually had more of a role than these feminists think. She was the power behind the mayor’s incompetence, she was a confidante for the kindergarten superheroes and a female figure in these girls’ lives, and she was a single, hard-working lady, strong, sexy, and beautiful. Her role had many other messages and undertones. Without her in the series, something is missing.
At least they could’ve just changed her outfit and gave her a face.
I don’t hear these feminists attacking Twilight for having an above-average, full-figured teen male in the story (Jacob Black). I don’t hear the feminists come with the pitchforks against Shoujo anime with these “cardboard box”, super tall, crazy athletic males. Whenever a woman objectifies a male in a written story or movie production, I don’t hear a peep from the slut-shamers.
This extends beyond the realm of toys and cartoons, and even affects famous movie stars and music artists. While many artists want to be respected as artists regardless of what they wear or how sexual they are, many have found a way to balance both an appealing look with a powerful message (like Beyonce).
But the slut-shaming feminists have fired at artists like Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Salt N’ Pepa, you name it. If they aren’t covered up like old grannies, like Adele, they are a “bad influence”.
Ironically, these same feminists don’t go after male artists like Nick Jonas, Jason Derulo, and others who actually DO the objectifying and talk more about sex than any other artists.
I seldom find young women who get interested in sex because their favorite female artists are into it, and I’ve been working with kids and teens for five years now. Honestly, how many teens can say they did it because Nicki Minaj said it was okay? But when teen girls’ favorite MALE artists are into it, teen girls seem more influenced to explore sex and sexuality. Or better yet, when some guy at their high school tells them how special they are, they are more than likely to do it no matter who is on a movie or music video screen.
I doubt Nicki Minaj got girls more interested in sex than One Direction did or Justin Bieber or Nick Jonas. So, should we shut down all the “heartthrobs” that come onto the music scene just because they express their sexuality and turn teen girls on? Bet we won’t. We are so quick to attack a female, we hardly think to look at the male stars that influence young girls way more than female stars, who have actually done the opposite!
If you don’t want your kids to be exposed to certain things, fine. As a parent, you have that right, but I don’t agree with taking someone else’s right to expression is the solution to raising individual children. Censor what you expose your kids to in your own homes, and give the rest of us a choice to enjoy what we enjoy.
This is not to say that I feel women should always be about their bodies and their appearances. I’m not that into mine. I love androgynous fashion, but I hardly comb my hair and put effort into my appearance on a daily basis. I do feel that it’s best for me to be natural and I would like my kind to be seen as beautiful, too. But to me, it’s perfectly fine if other women feel that their expression and confidence comes from a different avenue than mine. I feel that is what makes us all amazing; our diversity is what make us great.
Therefore, I can’t hang with the slut-shaming feminists. They make me sick.
These types of feminists make me feel sicker than the first one I mentioned.
Feminists all around have been advocating the #loveyourself campaign. Feminists have been speaking out about the media and how it pressures women into thinking they have to fit a “mold” to be beautiful, to feel feminine, or to be looked at as a “real” woman. This goes hand-in-hand with the women’s “strike” against makeup and plastic surgery.
Even music artists like Alessia Cara have been singing out about the entertainment industry and how women have been trying to fit this ideal to feel worth.
Of course, the world-wide standard has always been “the skinnier, the better”, which has caused millions of girls to basically starve themselves or get plastic surgery in order to reach this ideal. So, feminists have mostly been encouraging women to enjoy having a little “weight”. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I’m on-board with this. My whole life I was sized up by people based on my physical appearance. In the African American community I grew up in, looks mattered a lot as regards to femininity and womanhood, so I understand this campaign as a whole.
However, I feel that some feminists have transferred the shame from those who are thicker to those who are thin, and that isn’t right either.
Again, feminists should support all women, thick or thin, and it isn’t right to go against a thin female just because she is thin. As a thin female myself, this always triggered me.
Growing up, being skinny hasn’t been a good experience for me. In the black community, being thicker is prized. A woman like Nicki Minaj is more than likely to be considered “sexy” than a woman with a tiny butt, tiny waist, and small breasts. Constantly, I was told I looked sick and that I was ugly. Constantly, I was told I could pass for a boy because I had no chest. Aside from the fact that I enjoyed baggy t-shirts and jeans, which probably made me look “ugly” to certain people, I never really cared about my weight that much either. I stayed as active as I always have been. Still, the comments hurt at times, especially when I was a teenager.
As a young woman, I once looked to the feminist movement for support. I wanted to love my body and the way I am, just like all the other ladies. But I often ran into feminists like “Ms. Body-Shame”.
I have spoken out on my blog about being skinny and how other people considered me unattractive. And what did I get as a comment? “Backhanded compliments are not attractive, dear.” Like my experience, my life, isn’t worth fighting for or worth acknowledging because I fit a perceived “standard”. This was the beginning of my disconnection with the modern woman and the feminists that shame bodies like mine.
Before Ariana Grande really blew up, I read the comments (from men and women) on Ariana Grande’s and Miley Cyrus’s videos about their bodies being skinny and ugly, about how they look like 10 year olds, and how only thick women can look sexy twerking. You can’t say nothing about Ariana any more, but back then, people did. While some “anti-porno” feminists may feel that is an insult to thicker women, because it may sound as if men are objectifying thicker women, it’s an insult to the skinny girls as well, the girls who aren’t truly considered sexy without some “Hollywood” magic. It especially influences young girls who are just entering that world of objectification. We are also being dumbed down to our bodies, like only our bodies make us valuable, and since we don’t have it, we’re not valuable in other ways. That’s the message these people are sending.
I work with children. I had a 13-year old child tell me that my physique was considered attractive in the 1920s, but is no longer what men are looking for. Don’t know why a child felt they had the authority to comment on my body. I think she was trying to be funny and get some laughs from her friends.
I was fine with the comment too, because I am not looking for a mate, neither do I let a child get under my skin in that way. They don’t know any better and are only repeating what they see and hear. Still, this just proves my point. Feminists need to understand that body-shaming takes a broader form in today’s society and it is affecting our youth. You can’t support one group of women but ignore other women, and then call yourself a feminist.
If most body-shaming feminists actually stopped and researched what men actually wanted from women, they would come to find that the ideal is NOT skinny or thick. Men want that “girl in the middle” with fat in “all the right places”. And the media ideal is dependent on the male’s opinion (if sex does indeed sell). Check these out:
Maybe I fit the women’s ideal, but men most definitely wouldn’t find me to be the ideal. So why hate on me for being skinny?
“Feminist” comedian Julie Klausner is one of the “feminists” that make me doubly sick. If I wasn’t skinny before, she’s gonna make me skinnier because reading her comments make me vomit. That’s how I know her acts towards “feminism” are not helping and she is definitely harmful to my very nature. Her biggest attack was on Disney Channel star Zendaya. She made some nasty comments, those same bullying comments that made me want to literally hurt somebody at one time, and then she gets called a “feminist”?
Comments like, “And thinspo model for your impressionable tweens”, “Zendaya’s ultimate retort to Giuliana Rancic is starving herself down to the size of one of her elbowz”, “You don’t have to have an eating disorder to attend the Kids’ Choice Awards….but it helps!”, did more than just irk me.
Ironically, where was her behind when Adele was winning Grammy’s? An unhealthy body weight can exist in both extremes, and if you don’t think a skinny girl can be a good “role model”, I don’t understand how staying silent about thicker musicians/actors and discouraging exercising does the job any better.
It’s as if she feels all skinny girls are skinny because they starved themselves…She doesn’t realize that some of us eat only three meals a day, have a fast metabolism, and EXERCISE.
If we’re trying to get women to be seen differently in an “image-conscious” world, shouldn’t the woman’s merits matter more than her appearance, thick or thin, to women? If “body-shaming” feminists are so concerned with a woman’s image, they aren’t any better than society as a whole. In fact, they are a part of the problem and will produce an opposite extreme.
Pharrell Williams is a skinny man. But nobody makes a peep about him when he wins awards. That just shows the double standards (which I will discuss more about later). These feminists make it more and more difficult for women to be seen as equal to men. You might as well not call them feminists.
Skinny-shaming is really common in the African American community. Having a bigger booty, bigger chest, etc are what makes you a prize, in both men and women’s eyes. Skinny women are often shamed in this community. This is why it makes no sense to act like one body type gets treated better than the other.
I also want to talk about Lynn Cloud and her petition to remove Eugenia Cooney from Youtube. Clearly, the body-shaming feminists have gotten to this young lady, too. I understand that Eugenia looks sick (she’s skinnier than normal), but I have seen several men on Youtube that look just as sick. So why are we so focused on Eugenia’s image? Because she’s a girl? This never happens with men because no one focuses on men’s appearances.
If you are sick, or have a sickness like Cancer or Sickle-cell Anemia, and you happen to be skinny, are you not allowed to make Youtube videos? Last I heard, anybody is allowed to post videos, no matter their appearance. She could be a spokesperson for all the other people who are sick and can’t gain weight. Is that a crime? We don’t know her personal circumstances or why she’s skinny. But who are we to silence her? Is she supposed to stay miserable her whole life and never try to adorn her body? She might have a disease that eats away at her flesh. So, she can’t post a video about herself? You people must think teen girls are so stupidly impressionable that they can’t obviously recognize that she’s sick. If anything, I’m sure her fans feel sorry for her.
Instead of trying to get this girl removed from Youtube, maybe she should be helped by people. The petition should say, “Petition to Help Eugenia Cooney”. Women should be trying to get to the root of her body weight issues and should try to get this girl some help. But banning her from Youtube will just result in her starving herself more and making her feel unwanted. The outcome could be even worse. It also limits this individual’s right to free speech. This petition will definitely create adverse effects.
And why hasn’t Ms. Cloud attacked the number of thick people on Youtube? They may not influence girls to starve themselves to look like them, but they do discourage girls who are already too big from getting active and eating healthy.
Both images are damaging, but these body-shaming feminists are obviously walking contradictions.
And what about the skinny girls who have to watch a curvy woman with big boobs get all the attention from the males in the comments’ section on Youtube or everywhere else on the internet?
I don’t see a petition to ban these women. You don’t think curvy women are influencing these girls to get plastic surgery? No one gets plastic surgery on their breasts and butt to be skinny, do they? As a teenager, watching other teens with curves get all the attention made me want to stuff my face with all kinds of foods, get plastic surgery, and wear pads to make myself look thicker. I can imagine it has the same effect on other skinny girls. But if no one is out there to make them feel beautiful, if we have body-shaming feminists influencing the average feminist, who is supporting them?
And I’m not hating on a curvy, bodacious woman. That’s her body. The point is we should love all body types and stop the backbiting.
That’s why I don’t have time; there is no room in my life for the body-shaming feminists. Good thing I learned to love myself without the help of these feminists.
The video below I think really shows that just because you are super skinny, doesn’t mean you’re actually the ideal. I’m more like a “Yanii” in the video, but I’m ten times shorter. Most people think I’m a 12 year old, but I’m a grown adult woman! Let’s please stop the shaming if we’re going to call ourselves feminist.
If you thought the first two were bad, just wait until you hear about Ms. Double Standards.
There is nothing that irks me more than a woman who calls herself a feminist or benefits from feminism but places “masculine” standards on men. Nothing irks me more than a woman who believes she’s free to do whatever she wants but a man is not allowed those same freedoms. I don’t like when men have double standards either, but feminists with double standards irk me more because they put on the “face” of equality when really their own self-interests are a priority.
I could go so far as to call these women “misandrists”, but not all of them hate men. Some of them just want the perks of living and working in a “man’s” world while maintaining certain traditional boundaries. I’m here to tell you ladies, that’s almost impossible in this world.
There are several double standards that have come up and out of women’s mouths, from both feminists and those benefitting from feminism, that irk me:
His Role is Provider?
There are many women who consider a father without a job a “bum”. In my personal life, most women never consider a stay-at-home father as a hard-working man or the one “taking care of his family”. He is simply referred to as the “bum” by most women, including some so-called feminists.
Did it ever occur to some of these women that he may be the one cooking and cleaning for his family while his wife works? But oh no, that makes him a moocher. That means he’s not fulfilling his role as a “man”.
But who are women to decide what a man’s role is? You are not a man! And women would be up in arms if a man decided her role in life!
Why do these feminists believe that a man should be the one to work, but they have the option to work and/or stay-at-home? If a man is a bum for being a stay-at-home dad, guess what that makes a stay-at-home mom? A BUM. And don’t come and tell me that all stay-at-home moms always have a 24 hour job cooking and cleaning. Some of these “homemakers” are reading a book and watching daytime television all day…And dinner is from a fast-food restaurant.
I can’t stand a woman who gets upset when someone attacks her contribution to society, but has all of these expectations of men. If you’re going to question a man’s role in life, you’d best be contributing something too, instead of waiting on someone else to take care of you. Especially if you call yourself a feminist, the one who is supposed to be fighting for the same “social rights” as men.
And don’t come to me with the “men are supposed to take the lead” crap. If you’re the boss of your own company, ladies, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, now are you? If you are running for president, ladies, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, are you? If you are the superintendent of your schools, manager of your store, General in your army, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, are you? If women feel they can do all that, without a man’s leadership, women shouldn’t be whining and complaining about who takes the lead in their own households.
How about this…You and your spouse both be the adults and WORK TOGETHER. There’s no sense in preaching that women should have equal rights if you aren’t a practicer of what you preach.
Who Proposes to Who?
I can’t stand a woman who calls herself a feminist, but waits around for a man to make the first move in her relationship.
Readers, I listen to a lot of early morning radio shows before I go to work. Most of the people calling in are women. One particular woman called herself a strong, empowering feminist who intimidated men. She claimed her biggest dilemma was getting her boyfriend, who she had been dating for 10 years, to marry her. She believed he felt intimidated by her because she made a lot of money and had a leadership position in life.
And all of the radio djs were just like, “Ugh, what’s taking him so long? Tell him how you feel and get him to propose!” No, woman. You propose! Maybe he’s not proposing because you can’t make up your mind as to whether you’re a strong, empowering woman or a wannabe timid mouse.
Yes, I believe that if YOU, the female, are the one who is ready to get married, YOU, the female, should be the one doing the proposing, especially because you make enough money to do so. You’re a grown woman, right? You call yourself a feminist, right? Well, if you want the same equal rights, to speak your mind, to choose your own partners, speak up! YOU go out and buy a ring. You plan the date and pay for the dinner. Why have we settled with the submissive role when it comes to relationships, when we women feel we can march on Washington for equal rights, become the bosses of our own companies, and fight hard to be president of the USA? But you’re not “equal” enough to actually do the proposing? Why not? That would be the perfect way to get the answer out of him; you’d finally figure out whether he’s ready or not, instead of twiddling your thumbs while you wait for him to make a move. Passive-aggressively whining and complaining isn’t going to get the results you want. It never works.
Some of these women cry “equal rights” when it benefits them. But when they actually have to take on a “leadership role”, they suddenly succumb to the submissive role. I’ll talk more about this later.
I also have heard on the radio about some so-called feminists who have asked a man out to dinner, but then expected him to pay the bill. That tradition has phased out. It worked back in the past, when women didn’t ask men out and didn’t really have decent jobs. In this modern world, women are making a pretty penny. In this modern world, women are taking more of the initiative. And if YOU are the one asking him out, don’t choose the most expensive place and expect HIM to pay. YOU asked HIM! You should be trying to impress him in that instance. He didn’t even have to say “yes” to you. That’s like asking your parents out to dinner, but then leaving them to pay the bill. That’s like asking your colleagues out to dinner, but then leaving them to pay the bill. It’s shady.
A woman who is like that is showing she is self-entitled. And when the feminist title is placed behind her, it just makes her seem more about “herself”.
A Boy’s Not Allowed to Like…
It sickens me how some women, who claim to be feminists, attack a man for liking something directed to “girls”. I ran into such a feminist on Youtube. She attacked a teen male for liking My Little Pony the tv series.
And yet, she praised a teen woman for being interested in Spiderman, Power Rangers, Clarence, and Naruto… So, again, why is it okay for a woman to like Power Rangers, but not for a man to like My Little Pony? In this “patriarchal” world, it’s alright for a woman to be interested in male-directed tv shows/cartoons/anime, but men are not allowed to enjoy or respect female-directed tv shows/cartoons/anime? He will be called a pedo, but she…is empowering? He has “Peter Pan syndrome” and is a “loser”, but she’s…empowering?…. He’s gay, but she’s…empowering?
It sickens me when women, who claim to be feminists or benefit from feminism, allow their daughters to buy video games, trucks, and footballs, but won’t buy their sons a doll…
I Like My Men Masculine/I Believe A Man Should Be a Man (or Masculine)
As I said before, I listen to public radio early in the morning before work, and I hear a lot of crap from these wannabe feminists. There is one popular segment of most radio shows that allows someone to try to reach another person after a date that supposedly went “well”, but fell off. The radio dj will try to reach out to the partner that went “silent” and try to reunite the two, hopefully paying for a second date.
What normally happens is that we, the djs and the listeners, discover that the date was awful from the other person’s perspective.
Keeping that in mind, one guy was trying to reach a woman he’d been on a date with. He said he had a blast with her. When the djs reach her, she says she cut him off because his side job was “embarrassing”. His side job was to be an elf for Christmas and hand out presents to little children. I thought this was the sweetest thing.
But so many women called in, women who said they were lawyers, mechanics, CEOs, saying they would be embarrassed by him and said it just wasn’t a “masculine” job. Fine, you are welcome to expect all of this masculinity from him, because women should have the right to their standards, right? But don’t get angry when a man becomes “intimidated” by you and doesn’t want to marry you because you’re in a “not-so-feminine” role.
What made this segment so sickening was that the female radio dj host was the MAIN ONE saying his job wasn’t masculine enough. Honey, you’re in a male-dominated field! And this dj has preached, and preached, and preached about how she is the only one in her field and how males don’t respect her in the industry. She is often the main one saying that a woman can be a radio dj and still be feminine. She is often THE MAIN ONE saying that a man can’t define her femininity. But suddenly, he’s not man enough because he defies the gender stereotype?
So I ask you, ladies, who are you to define a man’s masculinity? Who are you to judge a man who is trying to spread happiness and cheer during the holidays? Women preach that they want a nice, sensitive man who cares about the family and children. But then reject that man. I can’t stand it.
I can’t stand when a woman goes around saying, “I believe a man should be a man”, but she works a 9-to-5 job, is speaking her mind on the internet or radio, and votes. Don’t these ignorant women realize that at one time, these things were considered masculine? If you aren’t willing to fit your feminine role in society, why can’t we start to see masculinity and manhood differently? It’s as if these women want the best of both worlds, and see men as a threat in BOTH roles. It’s only fair to let men define their own masculinity just as you expect to define yours.
And if you’re going to have these double standards, don’t go around calling yourself a “strong empowering” feminist. Really, you’re not one.
I can’t wait to see how triggered she’ll be when the “female” equivalent of this article comes out…
Men Shouldn’t Care About A Woman’s Appearance or Occupation
This is the subject feminists preach high and low. I understand why feminists believe we should be beyond appearances, especially when it comes to the workforce. Not everyone was born beautiful, but good people can always do good things. I do believe people should let their merits shine.
Still, in relationships, people have the right to decide what they like, both man and woman.
Feminists are not so lenient when it comes to men in this regard. As soon as a man expresses his desire for a bombshell woman who is a stay-at-home mom, these feminists are on the prowl. I can understand…unless this feminist gives the pass to a woman who expects a bombshell man with a well-paying job.
So often, I’ve heard women complaining about the kind of “job” their boyfriends/spouses have, or what their man wears or what they don’t like men wearing (the man bun, socks with sandals, etc). And that’s fine if you have standards. But he’s entitled to standards as well. If you don’t want him judging the way you look or your occupation, why are you doing it?
This is made worse when it’s coming out of the mouth of a so-called feminist or a “perceived” feminist.
These feminists get angry when men are talking about how hot a female celebrity is, but have no qualms with talking about how hot a male celebrity is. Really?
This is especially common in the Kpop industry. There are many articles about the objectification of women in the industry, which is noticeably true, but the industry’s fans are dominated by females…making the male idols ten times more popular. And it’s not because these guys are the most talented guys in the world. It’s mostly because they look good. Thus, the male “idols” are ten times more objectified than their female counterparts. They are literally just pretty “ideals” to most of these teen girls and young women (2030 crowd). It’s gotten to the point the Kpop male stars wear makeup and get plastic surgery just to appeal to these fans!
And yet, all anyone wants to talk about are the females wearing makeup and getting plastic surgery…
If we’re going to stop objectification, we need to stop it everywhere. But if you still want some hot guys to look at in the entertainment industry, why not let men have the same pleasure?
Men Can’t Hit a Girl, But a Woman Can hit a boy
I’ve run across many feminists who abhor physical abuse, and I don’t blame them.
However, it’s oddly silent when women are doing the abusing. Most feminists assume that women have good “reasons” for being physically aggressive to their spouses/boyfriends.
In my honest opinion, physical aggression and violence are physical aggression and violence, and it’s never right.
Consider the Chris Brown and Rihanna issue. We don’t know who started that fight, but we know Rihanna was left with bruises and had to be hospitalized. Chris Brown went down for that, and rightfully so.
Solange attacks Jay-Z in an elevator, got caught on camera, with Jay-Z not hitting back, but she gets cheers from feminists…not criticism.
Anna from Frozen punched Hans in the face, when he never touched her once throughout the film, and yet this movie is for feminists? Let’s reverse those roles and see how fast the feminists come marching in front of the cinemas…
So many times while I’m working with my children, the girls will hit, push, and shove the boys, and get away with it, causing the young men to get angry and cry about the injustice. And remember, when boys and girls are children and adolescents, the girls are usually taller and stronger than the boys. Why do we condone physical abuse from women, but pull out the pitchforks exclusively for men?
We need to stop physical aggression across the board. It’s never right.
A Category Girl is someone who wants to decide who is a “real” feminist. They think it’s their responsibility to let others know where they stand in this movement. These ladies are more concerned about who belongs in the space than they are about the actual issues that need to be tackled in society.
Oh, trust me. They hunt around with their radar, scanning every detail of each woman, just to oust someone out of a space they look at more as a “clique” and less as a movement.
These feminists can range on any level. Regardless, they all have this “criteria” for who gets to represent the movement and who doesn’t, and the criteria has little to do with whether someone supports the actual cause.
One type is the kind of feminist that believes a “real” feminist is a woman who honors femininity and doesn’t “act like a boy”. She never truly knows how to define what she means by “boy”, she just knows a girl shouldn’t act like one. Yes, I know, surprising, right? There are self-proclaimed “feminists” out in the world who use these kinds of derogatory statements, statements often used by male chauvinists.
But she calls herself a feminist…
This is the feminist that took on the title because it gives her status in the female community. She never really researched the term, it just makes her look good to call herself that.
I ran into such a feminist once. We were on the subject of Frozen Versus Mulan. I spoke about how Mulan was just as empowering as Anna and Elsa, how Mulan saved all of China basically by herself, how she saved her own love interest, how her dreams consisted of bringing her family honor, and how she took initiative in her relationship. Basically, I didn’t understand why Elsa received so much praise for being empowering in comparison to Mulan. And you know what she said? “Well, at least they didn’t have to dress like a man to prove how strong they were.”
Dress like a man? I asked her, “What do you define as dressing like a man? Last time I watched, Mulan was wearing armor and her hair up in a bun. Who said that a woman can’t dress like that and still be considered ‘dressing like a woman’?” No reply. Maybe she felt I was trying to strawman her, but the statement still stands. Clearly, she felt that to be a truly empowering, strong, “feminist”, you had to look like a “woman” (i.e. wear a dress) and represent everything girly.
This poster had several supporters, those who felt that womanhood should be honored and that women should stop trying to be more and more like men, and should try convincing men to be more like “women”. And I’m assuming their definition of woman was “wearing skirts and dresses and dreaming of romance”.
I understand their point, but again, how do we define this “womanhood”? Because my “female” experience never consists of dresses, hardly consists of makeup, and is hardly domestic. I truly enjoy being able to speak my mind on the internet, hold leadership positions, and I enjoy being single, without woman, man, or children in my life.
And if these women wanted to step away from being more and more like men, maybe we should revert this society and take it all the way back to the 19th century. Perhaps these women should leave the internet and stop speaking their minds. That was once a male role. Maybe they should quit their well-paying jobs and stay at home, waiting for their fathers or a good (or bad) husband to take care of them. Maybe these women should stop wearing pants, shorts, t-shirts, and sneakers…
Oh, but they won’t. Somehow, now these things have become a part of being feminine.
If feminine qualities have evolved and changed over the last century, there is no way femininity is that limited.
Feminism is advocating that women receive the same “social and political rights” as men. I’m sorry, but these women are doing the opposite by claiming that a “woman” can’t wear armor without being labeled as “looking like a man”.
On the opposite extreme, there are actually far more feminists against the traditional “feminine” values. I don’t think it’s any more progressive to be Ms. Masculine and assume that a woman that upholds traditional feminine values can’t equally want other social and political rights equal to men. These women tend to just want a balance for everybody, and there’s nothing wrong with that. There are things she likes about the patriarchy and things she doesn’t.
Some of these feminists will condemn women who choose to enjoy makeup and dresses.
If feminism is supposed to allow women to have more choices in the world, why are we trying to limit any woman’s self-expression or how she chooses to live her life? And if we want a woman to wear armor and still be labeled as “looking like a woman”, we equally shouldn’t even consider “dresses” as less “empowering”. We really shouldn’t even look at dresses as a “woman” thing at all. There are plenty of men who also wear dresses and, depending on culture, look at similar robes as a masculine thing. Some men prefer dresses for comfort or style.
We should just look at these forms of attire as clothing styles, tastes, forms of comfort, parts of cultures, and interests. The sooner we start accepting that clothing varies by culture, comfort, and taste, the sooner we realize that clothing doesn’t define gender or sex or sexuality, the sooner we all can move along happier in our lives.
Category Girls of this extreme might not stop at just labeling “feminists” according to clothing. She might decide that being a “feminist” depends on her career choices or her views on childbirth.
If a woman wants to be a secretary, model, or even a, gasp, HOUSEWIFE, she will be marked as anti-feminist. This type of Category Girl will NOT allow this type of woman to call themselves a feminist. Last I checked though, the feminist movement supports women’s RIGHTS, which means their right to have a choice. So why do the Category Girls feel they get to require women to behave and act as they feel they should in order to be embraced by feminism? The movement is helping women gain rights, whether they take advantage of all, most, or none of those rights. Men equally should have the right to choose to live their lives the way that makes them happiest.
The Category Girl also has a thing against Transwomen. Most of them are TERFS. They might be respectful towards Transwomen in public, remembering their pronouns, but they refuse to believe that Transwomen belong anywhere near the feminist movement. They might think that Transwomen are too different from cis women to understand the issues cis feminists are fighting for.
First off, you don’t have to be a cis woman, transwoman, or any other kind of woman to even BE a feminist. You can be a man and be a feminist. That just shows how ignorant these women are when it comes to a movement they supposedly support.
Second, why wouldn’t we want as many people supporting the movement as possible? The Category Girl would rather treat the movement like an exclusive club than an effort for reform. Guess what? It’s not one of your exclusive clubs. This ain’t the Unicorn Club. Real people need this kind of movement and benefit from it. If we get as many people on board with fighting for these rights globally, women around the world might just get what they want and need. But if we have feminists who keep treating the movement like a game of Solitaire, we ain’t gonna get anywhere honeys.
Third, no woman is the same. Every experience, even within the feminist movement, is different. What black women experience is going to be a little different than white women, right? But we all have one thing in common: We all want the social and political rights in society to be equal. And of all people, transwomen do understand how unequal society is. As one of my favorite Transwomen, Ravenovah, says all the time, they’re women of “two spirits”. Because of this, they know exactly how unfair society can be, how socializing can affect people, how our politics do not support fairness for all at this time in our history (or rather how it’s not enforced). Of all people, Transwomen fight the hardest for equal rights. Why shouldn’t they be represented in the feminist movement?
If the Category Girls put just as much effort into actually fighting against policies and social ideas that limit women instead of fighting people who are trying to support the movement, we’d all be one step ahead in the world.
The title refers to women who use the feminist title just for gain, perks, to get back at people, or to get out of sticky situations, but have no real interest in issues that affect women. Thus, she ends up abusing the title of “feminist”. This title could also refer to a woman who uses feminism as a title when convenient, but drops it when she has to do physical or laborious work, work actually considered “for men”.
These are the women that also cry “feminist” when they are rightfully criticized by others and don’t feel they should receive any.
She’s different from Ms. Double Standards in the fact that she may not actually have double standards. However, she recognizes that feminism gives her a certain power that it doesn’t give men, and she’s willing to fall back on it when she makes a “mistake”. She also knows when to play the “feminism” card and when to play the “traditional” card, making her a walking contradiction.
If you’re not following me, let me start giving examples. I knew of one young lady in college who liked the attention and company of many men. She slept around with most of the guys on her campus. In high school, her parents allowed her to get plastic surgery on her chest and butt. She definitely took advantage of the male attention.
Of course, she ended up pregnant. The moment she ended up pregnant, she claimed the man who impregnated her actually “raped” her and she filed a claim to get him kicked out of college. When the school refused to do this, she gathered some feminists from her school, rallied against the board, claiming they ignored serious issues that affect women.
Now, sure, she may have been raped. We don’t know what happened behind closed doors. But there was no real way of knowing whether she was lying or telling the truth, either. There was no physical evidence that she was raped. And the feminists that supported her only supported her because she was a woman who used the magic words.
The real problem is the fact that the young woman may have felt she had to lie. Our society has made it so a woman feels like a slut when she makes a “consensual” choice to have sex with many partners or when she gets pregnant out of wedlock. It is easier to catch a woman with children out of wedlock than a man (women get pregnant), so she often gets called the “stupid” one. And the physical consequences are more severe for a woman than a man (though a man may experience social/financial consequences), so women often try to find any support they can.
But lying and tearing someone down because of a mistake you made? That’s not only irresponsible, that is anti-feminist. It makes women seem like manipulative and fickle creatures who aren’t capable of making their own responsible decisions. It should not be supported by other feminists. I think more investigations should go into these “rape” outcries.
This became the subject of major scrutiny during the Emmett Till case. In this case, a white woman cried “rape” on a black man so that her husband wouldn’t know about her scandalous affairs. She used a black boy as her scapegoat, and it ended up costing his life. An innocent boy’s life. Add on racism, and this is the damage this kind of woman can do.
Anyway…
There are other incidents of the “users and abusers” I’ve encountered when working with children. Yes, it starts as early as five years old. I think I’ve mentioned how girls will often hit and shove the boys without consequence, right? Well, often times, I run across girls who are vicious bullies, but as soon as their parents are called, they turn on the tears and blame the male for “provoking them”. The manipulation works, with the male often being blamed as the bully, even when facts prove otherwise. I don’t blame the girls. They are just children. However, I blame society for enabling this manipulation, the feminists who support this destructive behavior or choose to ignore it, and the parents who just don’t have a clue.
Another example of this kind of feminist is one who has failed at a sport, job, debate, or anything else, provided that the “rules” were just and fair, but complains that she was discriminated against because she “is a woman”. Feminism does promote women receiving the same equal opportunities as men to go for the same jobs, play the same sports, and enter the same mental competitions. However, there is a difference between opportunity and success. Sometimes, some women just can’t do the job. Sometimes, a woman may lose a debate or a chess match. It’s not always the system setting up the women to fail (though it can happen and has happened at times). Many times, some women just can’t do the job as well as another person, and that is okay. We can’t blame the system when it is convenient and march our way into all the colleges we don’t get accepted to or into all the sports teams we’ve been rejected from. Sometimes, we have to be objective and analyze whether we were denied based on gender/sex or based on our actual skills (or lack thereof).
There is another type under this User and Abuser label. She’s the woman who is always strong, powerful, and in control until she really has to do a “man’s” job. What do I mean by that? I mean the one that has to serve in the military.
Luckily, in the USA, many women don’t have to experience being drafted into military service. But in many other countries, the draft is a very real part of life. Often times, women are exempt from military service because they are deemed too “weak” to do the rigorous training the men do.
Most feminists have been offended by this, but I recently ran across a self-proclaimed feminist who said she did feel women were “too weak” to be drafted in the military. In one conversation, she mentioned how women should be allowed in male-dominated fields, how women were strong, and how they were capable of having children and then going back to work. But when the topic of military service came up, she mentioned how her “menstrual” would hold her back and how she wouldn’t be able to take having to exert herself physically because of cramps.
Well, no one said military service was easy. Even men struggle through it. But there are many ways women could serve in the military, offering their intellect, their agility, hands or anything else. I presented this idea to the “feminist”, and her response was “That’s just not for women”. This was coming from a woman who claimed women were “strong” and capable of handling male-dominated fields. But as soon as the idea of mandatory military service came up, she was suddenly the docile mouse. This showed me that she was ready to use feminism when she wanted to use it, but not ready to assume the responsibilities that came with feminism. If we advocate that women be treated equally to men, we should expect the same things of women that we do men. They should have the same responsibilities. They should take responsibility for what they’re advocating.
Apparently, some women just aren’t ready for true feminism-the kind that doesn’t make their life more cushy, that is.
These kinds of feminists confuse the heck out of everybody, which sets the feminist movement back. What do you want? Do you want equal rights or not?
All of these gray/grey areas leave room for anti-feminists to poke holes.
Did I mention that some of these women get paid just from saying they’re feminists? It’s more of a business for them, nothing personal.
Yes, I used it. I used one of the worst insults to describe a feminist. I don’t always like to throw this word around, but if you’re acting like one, you are. Many people throw this word around unjustly, but there are a group of “feminists” that this word applies to.
Before I lay it thick on them, I do want to admit that I respect the feminazis more than all of the above feminists. No great movement gets noticed without radicals, right? A radical movement can be an effective movement. For starters, at least most of them know what they stand for and aren’t full of the major contradictions other feminists are known for (unless they also fall into the other above categories). These women have gone beyond just fighting for equal rights; they are ready to destroy any “male-dominated” society. These are the women that are strictly focusing on the “patriarchy” and nothing else.
While I applaud them for getting down to the gritty business, sometimes these women seem to be trying to create their own little strict feminist regime. They are “puritanical” in a way, insisting that everything caters to women, the female sex, and her issues and needs, whether it be in a movie, music video, song, or book (like Nazi Germany). In fact, she may insist that there not be a male present AT ALL when the story is directed to a female audience. Romance is misogynistic to most of these women. Some of them may believe the only real feminists are lesbians, women who would never marry or engage with a man. Pan-sexuals and bi-sexuals don’t count.
This is the woman that gets angry if she goes into a movie and sees one or less lead female characters. This is the woman that can analyze and find all the misogynistic undertones of everything, intentional or not. She can see the misogyny of video game characters wearing pink, the misogyny of a female character crying, the misogyny of women talking about their relationships, the misogyny of reality show fights… I have to admit she does her homework.
Despite her “intelligence”, she can be very annoying. I can’t understand how these women can enjoy anything when they are constantly worrying about how men are perceiving them or representing them all the time. If these feminists were really so tired of the misogynistic undertones, wouldn’t they have made their own little collection of cult films, books, and music exclusively for women, by women, with female leads by now? That would work better than trying to boycott or protest every little bit of entertainment because of some “misogynistic undertones” they’ve discovered. And it’s easy for them to find, too. They can read misogyny in the different ways we perceive the color of the sky. That’s how obsessed they are.
These women are also very particular about who should benefit from the movement and who should be supporting the movement. Oh yeah, some of them want to control who supports the movement. I’m sure most of us are aware that men can be feminists, right? Not the feminazi.
The feminazi is so against the patriarchy and the genitals associated with that system, that even Transwomen are not welcome in their spaces. These types of women will not even support a woman who is transitioning into womanhood…which is pretty messed up.
These are the women that aren’t just looking at feminism as a movement for equal rights. They include all the issues women face in the world, no matter how crazy or petty.
You will certainly find some man-haters among them somewhere, too. They aren’t too friendly with men. In relationships, they are very particular about the men they like, if they like men at all. But these women are often so sensitive, even lesbian women have a hard time dealing with them (since they like to point out how we are all so conditioned by the patriarchy every 5 minutes), and they might include tomboyish lesbians to that list.
All cynicism and sarcasm aside, I understand their need to bring “light” on issues that truly affect women. I appreciate the points they bring out regarding the social restrictions, expectations, and labels that have been placed on women. However, the feminazis need to step back and look at the forest sometimes. They are too caught up in these ridiculous, petty, and really unimportant details. After reading their propaganda, it’s hard to enjoy anything anymore.
Most of the feminazis are so caught up in getting rid of the “patriarchy”, which is riddled with some things that limit women and which do encourage women to be more “like men”, they forget that there are also good things that have come out of the patriarchy that we can and have benefitted from. GASP. I don’t think the feminazis can handle that sentence. But it’s true. We all enjoy male inventions, like Apple, internet, cars, and much more. Sure, they were created in eras where women were limited, and yes the efforts of women to bring those inventions out there have been ignored, but there are still intelligent men behind those inventions, too. If you don’t want a patriarchal society, move out to a remotely isolated place and create your own town full of women. That’s what a few Kenyan women did. See? Women of action, not talk.
And there are privileges, especially in western societies, that women have enjoyed as a result of this “oppression”. Women have never had to be drafted, they’ve been able to mostly stay at home instead of slaving in the outside world, and men have always been expected to show chivalry towards women (even if some didn’t) by opening doors, pulling out chairs, and giving jackets to women when they’re cold.
Some of the women from the good ole’ days would hardly agree that they were actually oppressed, even if they were barred from doing everything they wanted. It wasn’t always an oppression that all women felt if they lived more comfortable lives. Many agreed with their set “roles”. Of course, some women didn’t, especially women whose husbands died, were mentally ill, or didn’t make enough money. Women have always been individual. Still, with that being said, many women don’t want to give up all of their comforts, and why should they if it doesn’t benefit them?
The gender standards have affected men in some ways, too. Look at how it impacts gay men or feminine men? We have had very defined separate roles in society, and much of the “rules” were written by both men and women. These “roles” were always decided by the lifestyle lived by both the men and women. If a woman lived an agricultural life, she wasn’t expected to work in the home. If a woman lived in an urban area, she was expected to do housework. And some women took pride in being homemakers.
There may have been more boundaries, but that was for both men and women.
As long as men exist, patriarchal thinking will exist, and as long as women exist, matriarchal thinking will exist. Each gender thinks about their own self-interests, first and foremost. We can’t get rid of one to uphold another. The only way to live peacefully with one another is to work out our ideas together, to remove the ideas from both systems that just don’t work or don’t lead to a comfortable life, and keep the things that enhance the quality of all of our lives. As an African American, even though White Supremacy exists, it’s not realistic to try to remove white people from positions of power. It’s best to rise in that system and then implement our ideas, causing a blend. I feel the same way about Male Supremacy.
While most women want to be seen as strong and independent heroes, we are also very individual and don’t mind seeing romance here and there. There is nothing wrong with marriage or relationships. It’s how we continue our human race. There’s also nothing wrong with a man saving a woman, as long as we know that the feeling is mutual. Women can’t always do the saving. That’s just not realistic. While we do want to focus on shedding stereotypes, it’s not always bad to enjoy or even fall into some of them every once in a while.
There are women out here who really do need to fight their patriarchal systems. They are in countries that truly oppress women. We should observe how their patriarchy is destroying them, especially if there is nothing good coming out of it. But some of us are actually living in a society where it’s really not fair for either side, men or women.
The feminazis have to ease up a little. That’s all I’m saying.
The following videos are not by a feminist, however, I think she makes some interesting points:
We’re going to be equal and fair here. Every cringey feminist gets a turn.
For those who are unaware, Trans people are people who are labeled a certain sex at birth, but identify mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as the opposite gender from that label. They also may have other underlying female sex characteristics that aren’t obvious to the naked eye. There are many transmen and transwomen who also identify as feminists, and oftentimes stand with other kinds of men and women against all sorts of inequalities. Transwomen, of all women, understand the boundaries society has placed on the genders and the political rules in place, as well as the lack of political protection.
Despite this, however, there are some transfeminists who can really set the movement back. There are women like this in every group, and there are some in the Trans community, too.
I do understand the road to transitioning can be a difficult one, and many trans women are looking for a supportive community when on the journey. Many find that support within the feminist community. Obviously, they should be welcomed with open arms. However, I do have a problem with some trans people trying to “censor” certain topics once they embrace feminism, and I do have a problem with a few trans people dictating the way other women in the movement address issues that affect them personally.
I can’t one-hundred-percent understand being trans or having Gender Dysphoria or DID. All the research in the world can’t make me understand what they feel and experience in totality. However, I understand the feeling of being excluded. I do understand that trans women want to feel included in the movement, and certainly there are certain aspects of the movement that apply to trans women, too. However, not everything in the movement has to apply to trans women, just like not everything in the movement applies to all the other different types of women, and cis women should not be forced to censor themselves when talking about issues that affect their everyday life.
Unfortunately, many of the injustices and disadvantages cis women experience are based on their biology and not just because of their social-gender identity. Most Transwomen feminists do respect this, but there are some, like the Dictator, that don’t.
Examples of topics that transfeminist dictators have tried to censor include: pregnancy, abortion, menstruation, breast cancer, vaginal disrespect, and/or Uterine diseases or conditions, along with other issues that refer to cis women’s anatomy and biology. Many trans women are sensitive about these topics because most of these topics do not include them and their own biological make up. As a result, some trans women have even said that women should not talk about these issues at all in order to avoid “excluding” trans women.
I don’t think that’s fair. Unfortunately, whether any of us like it or not, we live in a society where a cis woman’s genitals are the root of many of her misfortunes. That’s the ugly truth. Though the genitals are not gendered in any way, society has always “gendered” them, which has partially been the reason for women’s setbacks.
While it might seem like a treasure to many Transwomen, for many cis women, there are both physical, mental, societal, and political issues surrounding the cis woman’s anatomy.
Historical “science” used to distort all kinds of “facts” about women based on the “uterine” genitals. They used to say that women didn’t have a sex drive because the “menstrual period” takes away their desires. In many cultures, women were considered unclean because they were only known to “bleed every month”. In many cultures, rape is acceptable because of the uterine genitals. Therefore, it is not right to repress their voices just because it makes others feel uncomfortable. Honestly, the topic of women’s rights in general can make people feel uncomfortable. Still, the movement wasn’t created to bring comfort. Sometimes, we have to talk about sensitive topics in order to find solutions that help people.
There are issues trans women go through that other women do not experience, and that is okay. Would it be right for other women to try to censor a trans woman’s voice because other women do not experience the same things? No, it would not, because those issues are serious and need to be resolved for the mental, emotional, social, and physical health of society. It is the same thing when it comes down to women with vaginas.
These kinds of trans feminists also try to “censor” other feminist causes, too. They even try to censor the feminists’ use of words. They insist that feminists not refer to their own anatomy. They want to tell other women to stop calling their private areas by scientific terms or not to even refer to their own genitals.
Trans feminist dictators cannot tell other women how and in what manner they should identify their anatomy. There are plenty of topics in the movement that include trans women. But when a homeless woman needs access to menstrual pads, and wants to speak up about how there are no services for women with these needs, it’s no one’s place to tell her she is wrong to talk about it. When a woman wants to talk about continuing or discontinuing medical services that affect her fertility, it’s no one’s place to tell her she’s wrong to talk about it. If a woman is experiencing complications from pregnancy or after childbirth and needs to speak out about it FOR HER HEALTH, no one should tell her she’s wrong. These are life-and-death situations, and unfortunately, sometimes women do need to speak a little louder on these issues, even if it makes everybody uncomfortable.
I can understand that being surrounded by these discussions can be super depressing. I can understand that. Even for cis women who can’t experience childbirth or pregnancy, they often feel depressed when around women who can. I’ve had friends and family members who have had all of their internal genital organs removed, and can no longer have children. I’ve spoken with young women who never had a period and can never have children. It’s not easy when you can’t experience what other women are experiencing. And no one should be flaunting the fact that they can experience things others can’t.
Still, flaunting is different from speaking out about an issue. “Flaunting” is the act of displaying something to gain admiration or envy. Speaking about an issue is coming from a totally different place than that. You don’t WANT admiration if you have an issue with it. You want respect and you want to be able to live healthy and happy in your skin. If a young teenager doesn’t have access to menstrual pads, and they’re speaking out about it or trying to raise funds for it, they’re not “flaunting” their menstruation in your face. They aren’t trying to get your admiration because they can’t afford menstrual items. They are trying to gain support, sympathy, empathy, and understanding. Trans feminist dictators may not understand that difference.
If you call yourself a feminist, it’s only fair to make room for cis women to talk about certain issues that affect them just like there should be room for Transwomen to speak on issues that affect them. Transwomen have a community to speak about these issues. Cis women will need a community with their issues sometimes too, unfortunately.
Of course, not all trans feminists are like this, mind you. I have run into some very supportive trans feminists, women who talk about their own issues as well as the issues others face. Those women are helping us all move forward.
When I say “Color-Blind feminists”, I’m not talking about women who see all women of all colors equally. No. I’m talking about feminists who only acknowledge the contributions of white women when it comes to moving and shaping the feminist movement. I’m talking about the feminists who will fight the great female fight…but skate around issues that affect women of color. I’m talking about the feminists who don’t even believe Black women have it tough. I’m talking about the feminists who are actually racist and believe their ways of doing things are superior.
I’m talking about the feminists who don’t recognize that some of their standards, morals, ethics, and ideologies are developed from their own culture, and that their culture isn’t always RIGHT.
I’m talking about the feminists who forget about us.
I haven’t run into too many of these types in my lifetime (THANK GOODNESS), but I’ve seen them talking crap online.
Two examples of who I’m talking about: Elizabeth Banks and Anne Thompson. Elizabeth Banks thought she was doing something when she thought she was calling out Steven Spielberg for not directing any films with female leads…
“Buy a f***ing ticket to a movie with a woman, take [your sons], give them the experience of seeing amazing women on film,” Banks encouraged of mothers.
Ironically, though, it’s clear she hasn’t taken her own advice, and hasn’t actually supported empowering movies with women of COLOR in the lead roles. She needs to be buying more tickets if she expects others to do the same…and she shouldn’t be picky about the color of that woman.
And this is quite common. Many women who claim to be feminists haven’t seen many movies with African American women taking the lead THEMSELVES. They haven’t put money behind projects BLACK WOMEN are promoting. So why should anyone care about their causes? It’s ironic that these white women are just now stepping forward considering Black women have been winning awards and starring at the front of film since the 1980s. But you still don’t recognize them?
What’s worse is her little friend, Anne Thompson, a film columnist, followed that tweet up by stating that The Color Purplewas “one of Spielberg’s earliest flops”. Never mind that maybe it was overlooked because it was ahead of its time and controversial in story-telling, showcasing an open lesbian relationship and the struggles with trying to feel worth as a woman amid a male-dominated world. Never mind that maybe it didn’t get the same promotion as other movies because it was driven by SEVERAL strong Black female lead characters of all BODY TYPES and was not pandering to male eyes or European standards of beauty and decency. Never mind that. It’s just a “flop”, so it doesn’t matter, right Ms. Thompson?
And I suppose that should apply to all the overwhelming number of movies driven by “white women” that flopped too, huh? They’re flops, so they’re insignificant?
I find it ironic how these “feminists” or women who benefit from feminism can be trying to push people to see movies about women when they themselves won’t acknowledge movies driven by women. So if it’s a woman of color leading, it’s different?
This type of feminist can also be so disconnected from people who are not White, they don’t understand how their own upbringing shapes their own prejudices.
Giuliana Rancic, an Italian-American woman who obviously benefits from feminism, thought it would be “funny” to say that actor Zendaya’s hair locs make her “look like she smells like weed”. I’m sorry, how does a look produce a smell? Never mind the fact that black women always struggle with negative pressures to look and behave like White women. Never mind Black women are shamed for wearing natural styles and also feel compelled to spend hundreds of dollars (money they don’t often have) to get their hair to conform. This just shows the ignorance of some of these so-called feminists.
Even when feminists attack Black women for twerking or showing more skin, it irks me. For White Women, who come from a Christian-dominated culture and have ancestry from colder climates, twerking and showing skin is just sexualizing and objectifying.
But in other cultures, like Black culture, twerking has always been a form of self-expression for us. Before it was hijacked by pop artists, Black people expressed their souls through dance. As people who derived from a WARMER climate, showing skin was never a big deal. In fact, there are still tribes of women in many countries in Africa who go topless! I mentioned this before under the SWERF headline.
These types of feminists don’t recognize that their way is not always the only way. They don’t recognize their own prejudices and subconscious racism (which is the ideology that one race is inferior or superior to another). They don’t recognize how they isolate other women of color by not supporting them.
To these so-called “feminists”, all I have to say is get to stepping.
At this point, I want to wrap this up by re-emphasising my appreciation for most feminists and their efforts to try and push us toward a more inclusive and progressive society. However, I just had to bring this issue out. There are certain feminists that have been evolving out of the movement and I think it’s time someone warned others about them. They are mostly holding women back.
Leave me a comment and let me know what you think about my list. Do you agree with my list, that these feminists are cringe-worthy? Are there any others you would like to add? I’m open to discussion.
Generation Next 