They’re Burning All The Witches

One of the biggest misconceptions I’ve ever heard (or seen) about feminists is that they are bitter (and therefore feminists) because they can’t get married (often depicted in photos and memes as a woman who is “ugly” … and that’s why she’s a feminist. Not because she’d support anything logical like equality, but because no one else will “have” you. Apparently, according to some people, you can only support a movement about gender and intersectional equality if you’re unattractive).  

Firstly, looks have nothing to do with supporting feminism. End of story. 

Feminism is about fucking intersectional equality.

To prove my point (that you can be, shock-horror, attractive and a feminist, I’ve put a list together of famous “hot” celebrities that are feminists. (And I’m only focusing on the ones that a large group of people would at least agree that these people are attractive. I’m not saying you have to find them attractive, or everyone will find these people attractive – and that there won’t be people you consider attractive left off this list – I’m just using people whose looks are frequently idealised to make my point. So please, don’t be offended if I’ve left your favourite feminist off this list. It doesn’t mean I don’t find them attractive; I just picked a bunch on random, attractive feminists). 

Taylor Swift. 

PC: People

Beyoncé. 

Patrick Stewart (even if you don’t think he’s attractive, he is too awesome not be included in this list). 

Sophie Turner.

Mark Ruffalo. 

Ellen Page. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt. 

Olivia Wilde. 

Emma Watson. 

Jon Hamm (which I find ironic, as many MRAs use his image as ‘inspiration’ for their movement. He plays a character guys; that means he’s an actor. It does not necessarily believe he’s what you see on screen. Kind of like how Robert Downey Jr. is an alcoholic and a drug addict, and he’s regularly portrayed as both Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man … he doesn’t actually drink or do drugs. See how it works? It’s called acting). 

Ryan Gosling. 

Daniel Craig. 

Anna Kendrick.

Jane Fonda. (Fuck off my page if you don’t think she’s hot. Have you seen Grace & Frankie? Jane Fonda is a total babe, and if she would have me, I would gladly be her girlfriend.)

Alicia Keyes.

Viola Davis. Damn, you should see her in Widows. If you weren’t attracted to her before, because maybe you’re a fool, you will be after you watch her in Widows. Damn, that woman.

Natalie Portman.

Laverne Cox.

I think I’ve made my point. You can be attractive and be a feminist. It’s not either or.

You can also be an attractive cis-man and be a feminist. 

You can also be any gender or sex; have any sexual orientation; be of any religion or race; be disabled or suffer from an “invisible” mental or physical illness or be able-bodied; be anything and anyone and be a feminist.  

But, more importantly, what is the actual point of this argument? It takes than thirty seconds to type into Google “famous celebrity feminists”. It takes maybe a minute or two longer to ascertain the fact that you are wrong: that feminism isn’t a movement for fat, unattractive women who have blue hair (or whatever other harsh stereotypes you claim). 

It’s a movement for people who support gender and intersectional equality. 

I’m not sure what this “argument” aims to prove (nothing, really, as it’s clearly not true). 

Is it designed to shame conventionally attractive people into not being feminists?  

If that’s the case, you clearly need a new argument, because judging by the small list I just presented, your argument’s not working. 

In fact, the opposite seems to be happening.

The more you protest, the more feminism seems to be flourishing, especially with the younger generations.

Or is it designed to make people – women, in particular – feel bad if they want to dye their hair bright colours? Or dress in a style you feel is appropriate? Or that if you’re not a size zero you have zero self-worth as a person? 

Because, if the point of your argument is to tell women to dress and look a certain way, you’re reminding me why we need feminism. Instead of discouraging me, you’re actually encouraging me to be stronger, louder, fight harder. 

To Fight Like A Girl, as Clementine Ford would say.

So … I guess congrats. Your argument, while wrong, does work … just not always the way you intended it to. 

Now that we have firmly established that a person can be attractive and can also be a feminist, how about you take a good long, hard look at yourself and work out why someone, in your eyes, is only worth something if you deem them to be attractive? 

Because, to me, if someone has something important to say, offer information I need, present a reasonable and logical argument, I don’t base my judgements of the worthiness of their statements on their looks.  

I wouldn’t go to an oncologist and say, “You must be wrong about my cancer, you’re ugly.” (See how ridiculous that sounds? That’s what you’re doing.) I’m going to listen to what that person tells me, especially if they know what they’re talking about.  

Self-worth, intelligence and basic human decency is not based on attractiveness. 

Go pick a new argument; this one is not only incredibly outdated and inaccurate, it’s pathetic, and the only people you’re convincing is people exactly like you.

Facebook

Instagram

Twitter