Here’s an experience many feminists can probably relate to.
You’re having a discussion (more likely an argument) with someone about feminism. You feel like you’re making good points – expressing why you became a feminist, and why you think a movement like this is necessary. You’ve wrapped your side of the debate up, fully expecting any rational person to agree with the claims you’ve made, when BOOM, here comes the counter:
“But what about ____? They did/said/supported ____, and it’s terrible! I can’t agree with a movement that welcomes ____.”
Here’s the problem – they’re right; it was terrible. You actually completely agree with what they’re saying, but from here, the conversation is doomed to head down a path you don’t want, one where you’re forced to explain that no, that person isn’t actually a feminist, even if they do call themselves one, and that’s not what the movement is really about…
Any hope of having a productive conversation about a social issue you’re passionate about, has just been thrown out of the window, because now you’re forced to atone for the actions of someone who calls themselves a feminist, but completely butchers the purpose of the movement. With the increasing popularity of political discussion on social media, this type of interaction is just becoming more and more common. If someone wants to tear down your entire cause, all they have to do is point to the dozens of Twitter feminists calling for male genocide and say, “See?! You just hate men!”
Though there are certainly benefits to feminism being such an expansive movement, the problem with such an amorphous and informal organization is that literally anyone can preach whatever extreme values they want, and brand it “feminism.” And unfortunately, we have been all too accepting of people that should absolutely not be propped up. Linda Sarsour, one of the founders of the Women’s March, and a vocal proponent of fundamentalist Islam values, is a perfectly horrifying example. In regard to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim feminist activist for women’s rights in the Middle East, Sarsour tweeted that she wished she “could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women,” comparing Hirsi Ali with a conservative activist.
The most offensive part of this already tasteless statement is the fact that Hirsi Ali is a victim of female genital mutilation due to her fundamentalist upbringing, thus the motivation behind dedicating her life to speaking up for women in similarly oppressive situations. However, because she disagrees with Sarsour’s Sharia-Law-romanticizing views, Sarsour struck out with personal cruelty. Even worse, when recently confronted about the situation at a college event, Sarsour skirted the topic, and dismissed the student who questioned her about the matter because he was a white male. The usage of blatant identity politics, along with refusal to acknowledge her faith’s part in oppressing women, makes Linda Sarsour one of the last people we want at the forefront of feminism. Just as we must try to overturn the sexism, homophobia, and bigotry in American conservative Christian values, we as feminists must be willing to admit when other belief systems are flawed – even when they are our own.
Unfortunately, people like Sarsour are a very vocal portion of the movement, and therefore what most non-feminists immediately think of when feminism is brought up. Another perfect example of misguided values is Lena Dunham, a star whose proud identification with the feminist movement has single-handedly ostracized many of those who would otherwise be interested. On top of her past of continually making disturbing and offensive comments, despite promises she’ll be better, she is dangerously untrustworthy when it comes to the most vital issues. The latest scandal spawning from the #MeToo movement began with Lena tweeting out, “Things women do lie about: what they ate for lunch. Things women don’t lie about: rape.” Then shortly after, when her friend and Girls writer Murray Miller was accused of sexual assault, she quickly backtracked and issued a statement saying she believed Miller, and the incident was misreported by the victim. Though she later made a statement apologizing for her defense of Miller, her willingness to defend someone accused of sexual assault when she tweeted a mere few months prior about the absoluteness of believing women is blatantly hypocritical.
Despite the obvious ethical inconsistency of people like this, there is still a massive subsection of the feminist community that viciously defends them. We’ve created a community where the mere act of labeling yourself a feminist will grant you an unconditional get-out-of-jail-free card in the eyes of many of us. And the bottom line is, we can’t go on like this.
Supporting the lowest common denominator of self-labeled feminists isn’t “standing up for each other” as many of us think it is. It’s opening our movement to completely justified criticism. It’s lowering the bar. As it stands, there are feminists who encompass an outrageously broad spectrum, from “I think men and women should have equal rights everywhere in the world,” to, “Straight white men are f***ing scum.” The latter may be meant as a joke, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less detrimental to those of us who spend our time trying to convince the general public that we’re NOT just man-hating banshees.
If we’re to move forward productively, we need to rally around a unified cause with unified morals. This means expelling “feminists” who don’t exemplify what we want out of our movement, and refusing to support those who use the label to fulfill their misguided agendas. A smaller, more united movement in infinitely more powerful than a large, chaotic one. By doing this, when anyone who’s against our cause tries to weaken our argument by pointing out the worst example of a feminist they can think of, we can retort, short and sweet: sorry, that’s not the feminist you’re looking for.