Here are a few pieces from my weekly Double X column that I wrote while working at NYU's student newspaper, Washington Square News. Every week I prepared a pitch and then presented to the opinions editors, researched, wrote against a deadline and then worked with to accommodate the necessary edits. I thoroughly enjoyed working on this column as it allowed me to write about gender and sexuality.
Since the act was signed into law, a number of celebrities have publicly reacted with extreme disgust. While performing at the NCAA March Madness Music Festival in Indiana, Rihanna shared her feelings about the act with an expletive-filled response. Jack Antonoff, the lead singer of Bleachers, made a statement while performing in Indiana as well, donning a “Protect LGBT Hoosiers” shirt at his show saying, “Proud to play in Indianapolis today. Pence does NOT represent his people.”
Some celebrities even refused to set foot in Indiana, despite professional engagements. Indie band Wilco canceled their Indiana tour date after Pence signed the act into law, saying: “We’re cancelling our 5/7 show in Indianapolis. ‘Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ feels like thinly disguised legal discrimination.’” Parks and Recreation star Nick Offerman also canceled an Indiana appearance, stating on Twitter, “U suck.”
Many other celebrities have taken to Twitter to express their frustrations. Ellen Degeneres, Ashton Kutcher, Mark Ruffalo, Seth Macfarlane and Tim Cook have all tweeted their disgust with Indiana’s latest legal move. Former Scrubs stars Zach Braff and Donald Faison even offered on Twitter to make pizzas for any gay wedding in Indiana that wanted one. “If you really and truly want pizza for your gay wedding in Indiana…we will make it for you,” Braff tweeted.
The celebrity response to Indiana’s legislation is important because it has delineated between what is legal and what is right. Because of the messages from cultural heavyweights, this exclusionary practice has been rendered socially unacceptable despite being legal. By sharing their disdain for the act, celebrities are actually making it difficult for the act — and its inherent discrimination — to function properly. It appears that public rejection of the law by celebrities played a significant factor in its revision. So much public negative feedback caused Pence to revise the act so that businesses could not legally discriminate against LGBTQ people. Celebrities enjoy considerable financial and cultural success, but they must never forget that fame comes with responsibilities. It is encouraging to see them unified in the protest of an unjust law.
Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.
A version of this article appeared in the Monday, April 13 edition. Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
While Hicks-Best’s scenario is extreme, it draws attention to the very real and very problematic issue of victim blaming — a huge part of rape culture. Saying that a woman has asked for her rape because of the way she was dressed or the amount of alcohol she consumed is a direct insinuation that a woman welcomed, and even encouraged, her own sexual assault. This is never the case; only 4.4 percent of rapes actually involve apparent, legitimate provocative behavior by the victim. No woman ever asks for a sexual assault to happen to her. A tight red dress doesn’t mean any woman wants to be forced into sex. And two or three more drinks than usual isn’t an invitation to do so either.
It is even more ignorant to assume to claim that a woman is lying about a rape. In 2014, when the rape accusations against Bill Cosby began rolling in, Cosby and his supporters argued that these women were reporting the comedian’s sexual assaults for fame and financial gain. They insinuated that these women were using these accusations as a platform for media attention. This claim is ridiculous — no woman stands to gain anything from a sexaul assault except extreme trauma. Hicks-Best’s mother said, “After 11 she lost the rest of her childhood.” There is no way Hicks-Best, or any other woman, would ever ask for that.
Saying she was asking for it is not a legitimate cause of rape. It is important to note that rape itself is most usually not about sexual desire. Rather, the reasons for rape rest in violence and anger. What the victim was wearing or doing is never a factor considering most rapistsnever actually remember their victim’s attire and studies have proven that what a victim wears does not typically contribute to their sexual assault.
Victim blaming creates and perpetuates the excuse that a woman is “asking for it,” furthering the continuation of rape culture. It has additionally created an environment in which women are terrified to speak out about their own rapes — in the last five years, 68 percent of sexual assaults went unreported — and allows for many rapists to go unconvicted for their crimes.
If we want to put an end to rape and the culture that allows for its continuation, we have to stop treating our victims like culprits. No one asks for rape, so let’s stop saying they do.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
Bisexuality is plagued with countless misconceptions. Bisexual individuals are viewed as extremely promiscuous. It is a common and awful assumption that, because bisexual individuals are not attracted to just one gender, they must want to sleep with everyone. This assumed promiscuity in turn feeds into the belief that bisexuals can never hold down a monogamous relationship.
The stereotype that bisexuals are sexually indecisive makes it seem like bisexuality is more of a sexual phase than a legitimate sexual orientation, or that it is merely a tool used to soften the blow of coming out to a conservative audience. In 2013, research confirmed that with both homosexual and heterosexual men and women who were surveyed agreed that bisexuality was not a real, genuine sexuality. On the contrary, bisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation, with 1.8 percent of Americans identifying as bisexual.
A big reason why these misrepresentations continue to be perpetrated has to do with the media, which does very little to correct these hackneyed ideas. Not only are only 3.3 percent of TV show regulars lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, but there is a marked lack of bisexual characters in the mainstream media. When bisexual characters are actually depicted, they are true society’s stereotypes of them: promiscuous, indecisive and incapable of monogamy. In “Orange Is The New Black,” Piper is bisexual, but her sexuality is used as a tool to paint her as having a split personality. MTV’s “A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila” was another such perpetrator, featuring Tequila, the show’s bisexual host, doing mainly promiscuous, overly sexual things with contestants. Additionally, the show itself further encouraged misconceptions when it was renewed for a second season so Tequila could find another partner. This makes her seem like her bisexuality made her unable of staying in a solid relationship.
Thanks to Catwoman, bisexuality now has a new face — one who is strong, self sufficient, independent and decisive despite her status as femme fatale. Bisexuality is a genuine sexual orientation and Catwoman embodies it. She may not be good news for Batman, but she is
for bisexuality.
Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.
A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, March 3 print edition. Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
In turn, every awards season Hollywood’s women must stand there and field these questions, participating in a discussion about their appearances rather than their careers.
This awful line of questioning results in demeaning conversations. Yet for the longest time, Hollywood’s women have put up with it. They talked about their dresses, their exercise routines, their diets and their hair — they even hesitantly put their fingers underneath a high definition camera so we can get a better look at their nails instead of hearing what they had to say.
Last February however, things began to change. The Representation Project launched the #AskHerMore social media campaign, demanding red carpet reporters ask female stars more than just the “Who are you wearing?” line of questioning.
The campaign took off, and coincided with Hollywood women expressing their dislike of these questions. and coincided with Hollywood women expressing their dislike of these questions.
It started at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Jennifer Aniston refused to do the mani-cam. “No, no, no,” she cried when asked to put her fingers under the scrutinizing camera. At the Grammys, when a correspondent implied that Taylor Swift would be “taking home a lot more than awards with those legs”, Swift shut the reporter down saying she was there just to be there with her friends. Later on, Nicki Minaj stopped a frivolous line of questioningfrom Ryan Seacrest about her love life. And then, a few days before she would walk the red carpet at the Oscars, Reese Witherspoon posted an Instagram demanding that, on Sunday, reporters better #AskHerMore than who designed her dress.
These women’s rejection of the “Who are you wearing?” line of questioning is not only empowering to watch, but extremely necessary. Questions about beauty, men, shoes and athletic regimens are extremely demeaning. By subjecting Hollywood’s talented women to these sort of questions, we are allowing them to slowly morph from Oscar Nominated Actress into generic symbols of celebrity.
This is an awful thing to do: Nicki Minaj is more than just a “beauty in Tom Ford” — she is a best-selling rapper. Reese Witherspoon is more than a dress, she is an Oscar winner. Jennifer Aniston is more than her nails, she is a successful actress whose work in “Cake” garnered critical acclaim.
All the women who walk down the red carpet are more than their dresses. They are more than their waistlines. And they are, most definitely, more than the way they steam kale to get their waistline to look the way it does. Like Minaj, Aniston, Witherspoon and Swift, they are successful women who deserve to be admired for their talent, not their appearance.
Research substantiates Picoult’s claim. A 2013 VIDA study found that men’s work wasreviewed more frequently than women’s work overall. Female writers, editors and publishers are also treated as tokens with qualifiers consistently attached to their titles — not simply a writer, but a female writer. This tokenism becomes even more apparent in male-dominated genres like science fiction, where women are the minority of writers and editors. In addition, literary conventions prove to be discriminatory toward women. In 2013, sci-fi writer Ann Aguirre revealed that male writers mistook her for a barista at a science fiction literary convention, where she was one of the only women on the discussion board. She said that her male colleagues consistently talked over her during the question-and-answer portion of the event.
Sexism in this industry is hardly new. Throughout its history, the work of female writers has commonly been seen as inferior to that of male writers. In a 1922 letter to fellow poet Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot proclaimed that work written by women was unworthy of publication. Novelist Norman Mailer was quoted saying he could “sniff out the ink of a woman.” In a more recent 2011 interview, Nobel Prize-winning author V.S. Naipaul said he did not think female authors could be comparably successful to male authors, as he considered the worldviews of women to be too narrow and sentimental to produce quality work.
These sexist critiques of female authors are meritless. The literary world should welcome women, as their books are forces to be reckoned with. J.K. Rowling has made a fortune from her “Harry Potter” series. Danielle Steele has sold 800 million books and is the eighth in the world on the list of bestselling authors. Toni Morrison has won both a Nobel and Pulitzer Prize. Every one of Mary Higgins Clark’s 42 books has been a bestseller and Isabel Allende is heralded as the world’s most widely read Spanish language author.
Many influential novels were penned by women, including, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn,” “Pride and Prejudice,” “To Kill A Mockingbird,” “I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings” and “The Color Purple.” Additionally, writers like Mary Shelley, Virginia Woolf, Charlotte Bronte, Joan Didion, Jhumpa Lahiri and Joyce Carol Oates are considered to be among the greatest. In the current literary market, it is female authors who are seeing massive success. The most popular books of the last few years — like “Gone Girl,” “The Hunger Games,” and “Wild,” were all written by women.
Ultimately, sexism in this industry defeats the purpose of literature, which is meant to stimulate thought, expand perceptions of the world and inspire readers. Discrimination in literature is a deplorable and contradictory disservice to the field.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
This program is not an anomaly. Poor or nonexistent sex education is startlingly common in the United States — 28 states currently do not require schools to provide any form of sex education. In some states, such as Tennessee, sex education is only required if the number of teen pregnancies exceeds a certain percent. In addition, discussion of contraception is not legally required in a number of state sex education courses — 19 states require sex education programs, if offered, to exclusively discuss abstinence. Furthermore, a considerable portion of the country does not require schools to educate students on sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. Even if information about HIV is taught in a sex education course, by law that information does not have to be medically accurate in 38 states.
The commonality of deficient sex education is unacceptable, especially considering the current rates of pregnancy and STI contraction among American teenagers. Every year,750,000 teenage girls become pregnant, 80 percent of those pregnancies being unwanted. In addition, American teenagers contract about 20 million STIs annually. Every hour, two individuals age 13 to 29 contract HIV. A comprehensive sex education can curb these statistics.
Studies have shown that American teenagers who were given a comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy than students who were given abstinence-based sex education or no sex education at all. Additionally, sex education that discusses emergency contraception has proven to reduce teen pregnancy — in 2000, 51,000 abortions were avoided as a result of emergency contraception. Students who were not given a quality sex education were more likely to contract an STI.
Having no sex education in the age of Internet pornography is also extremely hazardous. A lack of proper sex education has led to the porn industry becoming the main sex educator for teenagers in the United States. Studies have shown that after viewing pornography young men are more likely to have a heightened interest in coercing partners into unwanted sex acts and have an increased expectation of sex from women. Sex education is extremely important in this regard because it helps curb danger by teaching teens the difference between sex in porn and sex in real life. This ultimately reduces the intensity of the effects of porn on young men because they have a greater grasp of what sex actually is.
Additionally, the removal of sex education does not allow for an accurate conversation about sexual consent. Recently, what constitutes sexual consent has been a highly discussed subject. As such, it is necessary to have a program that establishes an accurate definition that will allow for nothing but absolute clarity in sexual situations. Allowing sex education to wane in the United States is unacceptable. Adequate education is key in ensuring that they are properly educated before they become sexually active so the sex is healthy, safe and enjoyable.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
For too long, fashion companies have placed extremely skinny women in their advertisements to imply that the body type shown is the one all women should covet. This unrealistic standard of beauty is negatively affecting women of all ages across the country.
The average American woman experiences 13 negative thoughts about her body over the course of a day, and 97 percent of these women have admitted to having at least one “I hate my body” moment during the same period of time. In addition, 91 percent of women are dieting to achieve the “ideal” body shape. It is no surprise then, that the dieting industry generates a yearly revenue of $55.4 billion.
Confidence among young girls is even worse. Around 42 percent of third-grade girls have said they want to be thinner than they currently are, and 81 percent of 10-year-old girlshave admitted to being afraid of getting fat. In a 2004 DC survey of girls ages 14 to 18 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 18 percent had starved themselves to lose weight, 11.3 percent had used diet pills and 8.4 percent had vomited or used laxatives.
This low body confidence also severely affects the health of many young women. Dietingcompromises healthy growth and results in nutrient deficiencies. More troubling is the fact that low body confidence can lead to suicidal thoughts and substance abuse.
Studies have proven the connection between models in advertisements and low body confidence among women. A study conducted found that 47 percent of fifth- to 12th-grade girls had wanted to lose weight because of pictures they had seen in magazines. Also, 69 percent of the girls surveyed said the magazine pictures influenced their idea of what the perfect body is supposed to look like.
Mislabeling Dalbesio as “plus-sized” only contributes to these awful statistics. Dalbesio is healthy and, in any other industry, would be considered thin. Once models that more accurately depict the full range of body types — ones that truly resemble average American women — low body confidence among women will become less common. It would be empowering to most women to be able to look at a model in a magazine and see a reflection of themselves — not what they would look like if they were 50-something pounds lighter with a thigh gap.
Fashion labels should strive to employ models with more realistic figurer because continuing to cater to the 5 percent of women who do look like traditional models while allowing the other 95 percent to writhe in destructive self-loathing is wrong. No woman should be made to feel as though her body is inadequate, and no woman should bear the connotative brunt of being called plus-size when, in reality, she is completely normal. The diversity of the female body types should be celebrated in advertisements, not squandered by an impossible industry standard.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
Paul Newman can age and Brad Pitt can age, but Renee Zellweger and other actressescannot age as easily. Sexism in Hollywood extends far beyond Zellweger’s face and the discussion of impossible beauty standards. For many reasons, Hollywood is a less than hospitable place for women.
On camera, women face a great deal of discrimination. The Geena Davis Institute releasednew research on Sept. 22 that confirmed women in Hollywood are severely discriminated against on camera. The report, which accounted for films that were theatrically released between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, found that women are grotesquely underrepresented. There was one female character for every 2.24 male characters, and only 30.9 percent of speaking characters were female. The report also found that the characters women do play tend to not be strong, independent characters.
Female doctors, judges, lawyers and executives are almost never depicted. Instead, women are featured in roles where their characters are not pivotal to the development of the story. In some cases, a woman is casted in a role where her character’s only purpose is to act as a device for a male protagonist’s self-realization. Film critic Nathan Raban described this trope by coining the term “manic pixie dream girl.”
The research also shows patterns of hypersexualzation among women on screen. It persists in both television and film for many actresses, regardless of whether they are 13 or 39. Women are overly made up and promiscuously dressed across genres — indie films, romantic comedies, blockbuster adventure movies and more. In addition, female characters continuously appear nude more frequently in films than men.
Moreover, a serious wage gap exists between actresses and their male counterparts.Forbes’ 2013 Highest Paid Actors and Actresses Lists revealed that while the distinguished actresses made a combined total of $181 million, male actors made nearly two and a half times more, totaling $456 million. Additionally, according to a study published on Jan. 28, once female actors reach age 34 they are paid considerably less than male actors. Male movie stars peak financially at 51 and continue to earn more overtime while actresses peak at 34 and earn less as the years go on. The roles offered to actresses also decrease drastically as they age. Actresses who manage to hold onto to their stardom later in life are more often offered parts that solely cater to their age and not their skill. Male actors, on the other hand, see no change in the amount of roles available to them.
Furthermore, the Geena Davis Institute research reported that discrimination continues off-camera with female directors and actresses both underrepresented and underpaid. Among films released between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, only 7 percent of 1,452 filmmakers were female, while only 19 percent of writers and 22 percent of producers were women. This could help explain why depictions of women have been stagnant.
Discrimination against women in Hollywood is a discouraging manifestation of the rampant and infuriating discrimination of women in society. Film fanatics cannot expect Hollywood to become a more female-friendly environment when societal factors perpetuate regressive results. The notion that women and men should be judged on cinematic skill and acting ability rather than sex appeal and youth appearance is far from being realized. For an industry that is often touted as progressive, Hollywood still has far to go in eliminating discrimination against women.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
However, a different perception of the case is circulating on the Internet. A few days after the incident occurred, VICE published a piece highlighting the disgusting comments made regarding the situation, which included, “Nice,” “Atta boy,” “Best.Teachers.Ever” and “Damn…lucky dude!” Had the case involved a teenage girl and two male teachers, it is likely that the public would have demanded blood, calling for justice for the victim and for the predators to spend their entire lives behind bars. However, because the student is male and the two teachers are female, some think it is appropriate to make Van Halen references and treat the case like the tired plot line of an adult film.
Unfortunately, this reaction usually happens when cases involve male victims. Demonstrated by the reaction to the Louisiana case, many in the public do not consider sexual assault against men to be serious. Despite this perception, the problem is prevalent. One in six men are sexually assaulted before they turn 18. Studies conducted from 1996 to 2005 have consistently shown that 14 to 16 percent of American men have experienced sexual assault. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network reports that 10 percent of sexual assault victims in the United States are men.
Men who are sexually assaulted face issues similar to those faced by sexually assaulted women. They are just as likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, intimacy issues and suicidal thoughts. They are also just as likely to underachieve in work and academics.
Yet, male sexual assault is rarely discussed. A 1998 study found that the problem is “common, underreported, underrecognized and undertreated.”
There is no reason this issue should be underrecognized — male sexual assault is legitimate sexual assault. These qualifiers do not differ from female sexual assault — unwanted penetration by force or coercion, physical contact of a sexual nature without consent or sexual activity involving a person who is 18 or older and a person who is 16 or younger. In the wake of sexual assaults against men, as seen in the case of the Louisiana student and his female teachers, many people discount the incident. The stigma that boys always want sex and are willing to participate in sex acts with anyone of any age puts undue pressure on boys, making it difficult for them to come forward when they have been abused.
The lack of attention also contributes to how underreported male sexual assault is. Men who have been sexually assaulted feel as if they may be blamed, judged, ridiculed or have their sexuality questioned if they come forward. In addition, many men also keep their abuse a secret out of fear that people will not believe them or take it seriously. If male sexual assault were addressed more frequently and openly, the topic would have less of a stigma, which would pave the way for survivors to more easily seek help.
The public needs to abandon this false notion that sexual assault only occurs when a male preys on a female. It is not restricted to one type of person — sexual assault can happen to anyone regardless of age, class, gender or sexuality. As such, attempts to educate people and curb sexual assault should not be directed at a single demographic.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
The culture of U.S. politics has historically and distinctly been heterosexual, with the image of the quintessential politician being the all-American man with a wife and two kids. It has fostered a political environment where gay politicians are compelled to hide and deny their sexuality, as well as rendering the idea of an LGBTQ politician an unusual concept. In spite of this perception, the notion that a heterosexual individual is more qualified for politics than a homosexual individual is unfounded. There is no credible evidence that sexuality causes or correlates with political skill. As such, Americans should not register it into their opinions of their legislators.
A politician’s homosexuality would not inherently make him or her morally unsound. The image of the politician with a wife and two children could easily be just an illusion. Perception does not always equate with reality. A considerable number of supposed family men revealed themselves to lack moral character. The Monica Lewinsky scandalnotoriously marred the presidency of Bill Clinton, a heterosexual man with a wife and then-teenaged daughter. Clinton is in equally lecherous company with former Presidents Thomas Jefferson, William Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, among many others. Their heterosexuality did not prevent them from participating in promiscuous behavior while in office.
Thankfully, society has progressed in several respects — electing more gay leaders and effectively addressing more LGBTQ issues. Acceptance of gay rights has become more widely embraced, and a March 2014 survey showed that support for gay marriage is at the highest it has ever been with 59 percent of Americans supporting marriage equality. This shift has significantly altered the relationship between sexuality and politics. More politicians are identifying as openly gay and and being electorally successful.
At the same time, LGBTQ politicians are still very much in the minority, and there are still obstacles for gay politicians to thrive in politics. To ensure that the progress that has occurred continues, support needs to be thrown behind LGBTQ presence in politics. More openly gay politicians like Ferlo, who are outspoken about their sexuality and push for the respect and the rights of the LGBTQ community, are needed. Having more openly gay politicians would communicate to the public that politicians should be elected to office regardless of their sexuality. Continued acceptance by the American populace is also critical to foster a more diverse political landscape. Politicians should be judged by their intellect, judgment, experience, compassion and dedication to their constituents. Sexuality should never be part of the equation.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
While the NFL’s decision to ban Rice is undeniably the right one, it is atrocious that the organization waited so long to act. According to the Associated Press, the NFL saw the video of the elevator abuse in April. Despite being aware of the gravity of the situation months prior to the TMZ release, the subsequent NFL action was insufficient. The NFL did not take the appropriate course of action until the video was leaked to the public. Had TMZ never circulated the video, Rice may have never been banned.
The NFL is not alone in its failure to confront domestic violence. Society at large tends to not devote its attention to the issue until scandals erupt, instead of on a regular basis. Unfortunately, it is all too common that conversations about domestic violence only become prevalent in the mainstream media when the situation involves public figures like Ray and Janay Rice. Each year, an estimated 1.3 million women are physically assaulted by a partner. One in four women will be a victim of domestic abuse during her lifetime.
Domestic violence is not just limited to women. One out of 14 men has been physically assaulted by a partner and estimates show that 835,000 men are victims of domestic abuse every year. Children are also victims of domestic violence — over 3 million witness instances of domestic abuse every year. Men, women and children who survive domestic abuse suffer long-term psychological and emotional stresses, as well as physical health effects such as heart disease.
Moreover, domestic abuse takes a toll on society as a whole. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that domestic violence is the third leading cause of homelessness among families. Still, most domestic violence cases are never reported.
Only discussing domestic violence in the wake of celebrity scandal does not help solve the problem — it perpetuates it. By not talking about domestic violence frequently, the crime becomes forgotten and seems less relevant than statistics demonstrate. A lack of ongoing discussion and prevention also allows for domestic abuse to become stigmatized and trivialized. In the case of the Rice couple, Janay was unfairly criticized. Many chastised her for staying with Rice and others claimed that, because she subsequently married him, the abuse was excusable. In addition, a Fox News anchor made a joke out of the incident, saying the take-away message from the Rice situation and others was to take the stairs.
Domestic abuse cannot continue to be treated in this manner. Discussion about domestic violence must be consistent. The conversation cannot occur solely when celebrity scandals emerge. If the issue of domestic abuse continues to be treated in this repulsive fashion, it will only worsen.
Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com.
Beyoncé’s statement was audacious, beautiful and — given the way female celebrities with similar star power have butchered feminism in the past few months — exactly what the movement needed.
Lately, celebrity reception has been rough for feminism. Lana Del Rey told Rolling Stone she was more interested in space travel than feminism. Shailene Woodley said she was not a feminist in an interview that mistakenly implied that feminism rejects the notion that the sexes should be equal. Additionally, Carrie Underwood, Katy Perry and Kelly Clarkson have all publicly rejected the feminist label.
Feminism should not be this difficult to understand. It is very simple to define: equality between the sexes. It has been well-documented that the feminist goal of women having as much autonomy over their personal and professional lives as men does benefit society in many ways. For example, women’s increased political participation reduces corruption and their economic engagement boosts the GDP. Beyoncé’s performance explicitly illustrated the idea using activist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s powerful TEDx Talk, which encouragesmen and women alike to join this cause.
Despite feminism’s simplicity, a great number of people — not just Del Rey and Woodley — mischaracterize feminism. Many still see feminism as an aggressive bra-burning push for the elimination of all men. This false perception does not help considering that the strength and success of any movement only occurs with mass support. This support cannot accumulate if feminism is incorrectly perceived as detrimental to men.
Del Rey and Woodley’s confusion does not help fix this perception. In fact, it makes matters worse. Society places celebrities like Del Rey and Woodley on a pedestal. What they say cannot be ignored or taken with a grain of salt.
Their words and opinions have incredible power — no matter how ridiculous that may seem — which is why it is incredibly unproductive when these women open their mouths and mischaracterize feminism. With public perception of feminism already shaky, a flawed definition skews already misguided ideas even further, detracting even more from the movement.
Beyoncé’s public statement is the kind of action that needs to be taken by female celebrities. These women need to educate themselves about feminism, not make ill-informed declarations about the concept. Figures like Del Rey and Woodley must realize that feminism, as a movement that has strived to bridge the gap between the sexes for far too long, deserves its name displayed with shining lights — not falsified in magazine interviews.
A version of this article appeared in the Thursday, Sept. 4 print edition. Email Lena Rawley at opinion@nyunews.com