The Washington Post recently published an article titled "Michelle Obama and Beyonce: Friends and feminists" that denotes them as branding an original and unique brand of feminism formed by the similar ways in which they handle their family, work, and their feminist ideologies. As the article rightfully mentions, having two African American women as feminist icons is something to be proud of in terms of progress in the feminist movement. Of course, this has received a lot of backlash, and the article itself brings up common criticisms these women face in the eyes of feminists. For example:
-Can Beyonce really be feminist when she exploits her sexuality for her career?
-Michelle Obama put her career on hold to be "Mom-in-Chief" as she puts it--is this feminist?
-Beyonce is married to a rich and successful male who has consistently exploited women in his music
-Michelle Obama is only notable for being married to a successful man, what has she really done?
While all of these arguments may be justifiable…I propose a counterargument. Is it helpful to anyone to tear down these women who proclaim themselves as feminist--which, as we know, is rare enough? I firmly believe that it is extremely anti-feminist and against all women's interests to criticize these women for their choices in terms of putting their careers on hold, embracing their sexuality, and their marriages. By saying Beyonce and Michelle Obama can't be a feminist because of who she is married to, we have now categorized a woman yet again by her marriage. Both of these women happen to be married to successful males in their own right; but they are also extraordinary women in their own right. I believe it is anti-feminist to be anti-male-- if w are telling men they must be more accepting of successful wives, how can we tell women they must avoid having successful spouses because it diminishes their accomplishments? I believe it is anti-feminist to demean a woman's accomplishments--just because Michelle Obama chooses to support her husband and friend when he needs it by choosing to put her career on hold does not diminish her feminism. Rightfully, I would expect that if the time came her husband would do the same for her. That is the aim of feminism. Equality and choice. Finally, these women may be in a different financial and socioeconomic situation than the average American, but should we shun them from feminism or embrace the fact that there are people in power who are feminists? That is definitely a good thing.
We are all people, we are all complicated. We cannot expect our feminist icons to be perfect, or we will have a very difficult time having feminists to inspire the generations. Let's stop wasting time arguing over the details of these women's lives as being anti-feminist, and instead celebrate the fact that they are embracing feminism.
-Can Beyonce really be feminist when she exploits her sexuality for her career?
-Michelle Obama put her career on hold to be "Mom-in-Chief" as she puts it--is this feminist?
-Beyonce is married to a rich and successful male who has consistently exploited women in his music
-Michelle Obama is only notable for being married to a successful man, what has she really done?
While all of these arguments may be justifiable…I propose a counterargument. Is it helpful to anyone to tear down these women who proclaim themselves as feminist--which, as we know, is rare enough? I firmly believe that it is extremely anti-feminist and against all women's interests to criticize these women for their choices in terms of putting their careers on hold, embracing their sexuality, and their marriages. By saying Beyonce and Michelle Obama can't be a feminist because of who she is married to, we have now categorized a woman yet again by her marriage. Both of these women happen to be married to successful males in their own right; but they are also extraordinary women in their own right. I believe it is anti-feminist to be anti-male-- if w are telling men they must be more accepting of successful wives, how can we tell women they must avoid having successful spouses because it diminishes their accomplishments? I believe it is anti-feminist to demean a woman's accomplishments--just because Michelle Obama chooses to support her husband and friend when he needs it by choosing to put her career on hold does not diminish her feminism. Rightfully, I would expect that if the time came her husband would do the same for her. That is the aim of feminism. Equality and choice. Finally, these women may be in a different financial and socioeconomic situation than the average American, but should we shun them from feminism or embrace the fact that there are people in power who are feminists? That is definitely a good thing.
We are all people, we are all complicated. We cannot expect our feminist icons to be perfect, or we will have a very difficult time having feminists to inspire the generations. Let's stop wasting time arguing over the details of these women's lives as being anti-feminist, and instead celebrate the fact that they are embracing feminism.
No comments:
Post a Comment