All-in or pariah?

Maisie Williams, actress in “Game of Thrones”, has decided to reveal her limited understanding of the world. In an interview in Entertainment Weekly recently she had this to say:

Williams told EW that in one of her first-ever interviews for “GoT” she was asked if her character Arya Stark is a feminist. “I didn’t even know what a feminist was,” Williams said. “And then someone explained it to me. And I remember thinking, ‘Isn’t that just like everyone?’ And then I realized everyone is not a feminist, unfortunately.”

I suspect the definition she was given was the one many agree on, that feminists seek equal opportunity and treatment for women. And yes, it’s hard to find fault with that definition. I suppose under that definition I could be considered a feminist. However, with no apparent awareness that feminism has come to mean so much more to many women, she goes on to declare what she sees a fair way of looking at the world:

I also feel like we should stop calling feminists ‘feminists’ and just start calling people who aren’t feminist ‘sexist’ — and then everyone else is just a human. You are either a normal person or a sexist. People get a label when they’re bad.

Predictably, the Huffington Post, demonstrating a similar lack of awareness, can’t fawn over Ms. Williams enough:

Maisie Williams proposed a rather genius idea about the feminist label.

…

The 18-year-old actress also offered a brilliant reason to discard the “feminist” label altogether:

The trouble is, for anyone else who doesn’t 100% agree that feminism is the only cause that counts or matters, this approach is fraught with illogic and error. Let me point out a few problems with this.

For starters, can feminists really say there is only one, commonly accepted definition of feminism? If the one I gave above is the correct definition, then how can they justify some of the things that have been said and done to people in the name of feminism? We have an entire campus culture, fully supported by feminists, built around telling women they are incapable of encountering any negative element without going into anaphylactic shock. How does that help them be equal when they get into the real world? Shouldn’t we be instead trying to build up women to be able to handle the worst that life can throw at them rather than building up walls to protect them?

For another, if feminism about equal opportunity and a woman’s right to choose whatever life she wants for herself, why do I see so much bile and vitriol leveled at women like my wife, who choose to focus on raising their children instead of pursuing some high-power career? What is wrong with her and I, before getting married, sitting down together and discussing our priorities and plans and deciding that for us raising good, healthy, well-adjusted, intelligent and educated children was more important than either of our careers, and that we would divide certain things up rather than us both trying to be all things at once? No one has given me any grief at all for not trying to climb the corporate ladder, for not pursuing a high-paying career at the expense of time with my family. Why do so many feminists wish to give my wife grief for her choices? Who are they to tell her she should be out working long hours to pull in more money than we really need? And I’m sorry, but I cannot consider myself part of a group that would be so inconsiderate to my wife. Her happiness means infinitely more to me than your approval.

Also, I find too much hypocrisy in modern feminism. They would rather get worked up over whether or not American women get free contraception than try to actually do anything about women in other countries being gang-raped and then sentenced to death as responsible as inviting that rape. They would rather worry about whether female college students are adequately shielded from controversial ideas in their classes than girls in other countries not being allowed to get an education of any kind.

Furthermore, there are plenty of other groups to worry about. What about racism? What about ageism? Feminism isn’t the only cause out there, and to divide the world into “feminists” and “sexists” dismisses any complaints other than the complaints of women. It glosses over the fact that there are any other issues at all.

I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with Ms. Williams’ statement if she had said only, “You are either a normal person or a sexist.” But no, the deciding factor for her is, “Are you a feminist?” I maintain, because of the reasons above and more, that it’s entirely possible to not be sexist, but still not be a feminist. I suppose if you want to adopt me as an honorary feminist, feel free. But if I have to self-identify as a feminist to be considered not sexist and a normal human being, then too dang bad. There are so many different causes out there I don’t self-identify with, even if I agree with them whole-heartedly. I’m just not much of a self-identifier.

I’m a county convention delegate and a precinct vice-chair for a political party, and yet I still don’t willingly self-identify as a member of that party. And even though this weekend I’ll be voting on who we want to put forward for the general election this fall, I in no way promise to vote for any of those people. If I happen to agree with someone from the other party more, I’ll vote for them. I’ve done so in the past, and will continue to do so. I’ve voted for the other party’s candidates before simply because “my” candidate didn’t bother to submit any kind of platform or briefing on their views to the free government election website. I won’t vote for anyone simply because of a D or R next to their name, and if they can’t be bothered to communicate what they stand for I can’t be bothered to pull the lever for them.

There are very, very few causes I do self-identify with. So by Ms. Williams’ way of thinking I’m going to end up more often on people’s “BAD” lists than I ever will qualify as “a normal human being.” And I’m just ornery enough to get my back up when people try to do such a thing. If I’m not with you, why can’t you just leave me alone? Why must you automatically assume I’m against you and therefore must be labeled as the evil other? Don’t you realize that human nature is such that if you start maligning someone who might otherwise agree with at least 75% of your cause because they’re not with you 100%, you’re more likely to push them farther away than guilt them into coming closer?

I am not a feminist, even though by some definitions I’m a very good one. Continually tagging me with negative labels because I have my (very legitimate, at least in my mind) concerns about where the movement is headed does not incline me to want to be more obedient and toe the line. It does not dispose me to want to listen to more of what you have to say. It does, however, start to lead me to take perverse pleasure in not being part of your group. Want to shove me into the box of “Not-a-normal-human-being”? I’ll go out and find like-denounced people to relate to. If I haven’t joined you willingly and you’re going to insist there’s no “neutral” position to take, what other option is there left for me?  Why do you insist on making me an enemy if I’m not volunteering for that role?

This clearly goes well beyond feminism or any one cause. If you are tempted to dehumanize any person because they do not 100% agree with a cause that is not (and cannot be) 100% clearly defined and enforced, then you are the problem, not the person you’re trying to dismiss. To co-opt a phrase, check your perspective. If you are so sure that no sensible person can find any valid reason to see things differently, then you probably need to experience more true diversity in your life. I can understand an eighteen-year-old actress having a very limited, naïve view of the world. But really, HuffPo? Brilliant? Genius? No normal human being could possibly not self-identify as a feminist? You’re old enough to know better. That’s not naiveté. That’s willful eyes-closed-fingers-in-ears refusal to acknowledge anything but the 100% purity of a cause. Any movement that is unable to at least acknowledge legitimate concerns and criticisms is not one I’m prone to join.

We don’t need more fanatical causes. We need people willing to reach toward the middle, to use patience, empathy, and gentle persuasion.