Op-Ed
By, Hoda of Joo Joo Azad
This Is Not What
Feminism Looks Like
As if feminism itself is not already (somehow)
a controversial issue, creating “This is What a
Feminist Looks Like” tshirts using (predominantly
female) sweatshop labor and distributing to male
icons like Joseph Gordon-Levitt (my personal
celebrity crush), Tom Hiddleston, and Benedict
Cumberbatch, was not exactly a foot in
the right direction.
Feminism, quite simply, is the
“radical” view that women and men
should have equality--no double
standards in societal perspectives, no
glass ceiling, no objectification and
commercialization--the list goes on. In
the United States (and in most of the
world), it is not difficult to see the malecentric perspective that dominates and
governs society, politics, the judicial
system, and the workplace (P.S. Sweden has
dramatically benefited from seeing things from
a more gender-balanced perspective regarding
government policies and regulations on issues such
as prostitution). From receiving a smaller paycheck
for the same career (devaluing the
potential or work of a woman) to
the widespread lack of justice for
rape victims and victim-blaming, the
existing system in most of the rest of
the world lays testament to the strong
need of a feminist movement--one
which both men and women need to
be a part of in order to succeed.
Enter the “This is What A Feminist Looks
Like” shirts that you might have seen on the chests
of some of the most in-demand men in Hollywood
to raise awareness for this movement (in the guise of
consumerism, of course, but we can save capitalist
holidays/agendas for another time ;) ). In theory, the
idea of getting influential men to spread the word
about, and trying to normalize, feminism, sounds like
a decent way to attract more men to join the cause
(which unfortunately is not the
38
The Feminist
Shirt Controversy
easiest task to do). Not to mention that these roughly
$70-$80 t-shirts are also raising money for charity.
Sounds like a potentially alright plan?
Well, except for the teensy little part about the
whole “these-shirts-were-made-in-a-sweatshop” thing.
Which, I suppose, is slightly important and relevant to
the discussion of feminism, given that most
garment workers are marginalized women
trying their best to make ends meet for
their families, and are already taken heavily
advantage of. It’s amazing how easy it is, as
consumers, to not think twice about where
our products come from. Scratch that. It’s
incredibly frightening. The conditions in
sweatshops are fairly widely known if you
just do a simple google search, so it would
not be necessary to again go through what
these horrid conditions would entail here,
but rather to understand the difficulty in reconciling
the production of “feminist” shirts by exploited women.
While Fawcett claims to have launched an
investigation into the suspicions on unethical practices
which has concluded that such assertions are not
accurate, (because a brand would
definitely want to admit to hypocrisy,
right?) the Daily Mail seems to have
reached a different conclusion:
women in their factories are being
treated in a way counter-productive
to the clothing’s suggested message.
Earning less than the minimum wage
is not only violating the basic human
rights of these women, but it also directly contradicts
the goals and purposes of feminism as a means of
empowering and encouraging women. And this raises
important questions for the feminist movement rooted
in such consumer-based societies: Does feminism, as
a movement, only extend to white, American women?
As a feminist, is it not your responsibility to take into
consideration the message your money is sending to
fashion companies’ mass exploitation of marginalized
women around the world?