My must read of the day is "Time Magazine’s silly proposal to ban the word ‘Feminist’," by Alyssa Rosenberg, in the Washington Post:
Time Magazine has made a tradition of asking readers which word they feel they would be well-rid of. And on the list this time is the word "feminist," which poll conductor Katy Steinmetz dismisses in a rather flip fashion. "You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party?" she writes. "Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade."
This is lazy outrage bait. But I am biting anyway, because while Time could have trolled readers by calling a ban for the word on "feminist" any time, the magazine is considering it in a year when the conversation about the meaning of the term is as rich as it has been in some time—even if some of that conversation is being conducted through mass culture.
For starters, I'm actually not in favor of "banning" any word. I like words and like that we have so many of them. I also like that at times the meanings vary for each person. The suggestion of banning a word demonstrates a type of arrogance on the part of the banner that I find puerile and annoying. However, Rosenberg is perhaps missing the point of Time’s proposed ban.
In the explanation for including "feminist" on the list of words to ban, the author, Katy Steinmetz, suggests the ban isn't about the generic word—it's the way that public figures are flippantly using it.
Rosenberg argues, "'feminist' is far too unsettled and contested a word to be tarred with the staidness Steinmetz ascribes to it. Our debates would be poorer for its loss, and for the lost opportunity to grapple with what women’s liberation really looks like."
Steinmetz point in the ban, which she writes out just below the list, isn’t about demanding staidness or formality in the definition of the word, it’s a complaint that meaningful discussions aren't happening when celebrities like Beyoncé stand in front of the word. Are they happening among people in other spheres, as Rosenberg contends? I’m sure they are, but it's not preposterous to ask that the celebrities shouting about their feminism actually do or discuss something beyond the label. With the exception of Emma Watson, the celebrities Rosenberg cites do not engage in thoughtful discussion about feminism or the issues women face domestically and abroad. They merely proclaim their allegiance to the group and then move on.
Plopping the word feminist behind you on a stage doesn't make you a feminist, and unfortunately, taping a sign that says "champion" above my desk doesn't make me a champion either. Steinmetz isn't suggesting people abandon the discussion of feminism and feminist issues, she's merely noting that it's quickly becoming a trendy word that has little meaning for the celebrities who, like cattle, are following the herd with no knowledge of the destination. Most don't even know whom they're following, but they'll shout about their "feminism" because Beyoncé is doing it too.
We should demand more accountability from celebrities that choose to insert themselves in social and political issues. If you want the label, you have to demonstrate why. Unless celebrities are willing to do that, they don't have the right to claim the word or be some kind of figurehead for it. We wouldn't accept politicians proclaiming a party allegiance without explaining it, why should we accept it from any other public figure?