This is an interesting -- and age-old -- debate that you've raised, Leah, about what constitutes feminism. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on this particular example, but I've thought a lot about this feminism question. In part, it comes down to whether or not you see feminism as an ideology or as a mode of behavior (liberated, powerful, fearless, bold, whatever). I think there can be something useful about defining feminism very broadly and non-ideologically -- it allows more people to identify with feminism in some way, rather than feeling that they can't be feminists because they don't toe some specific line (e.g., the old "I'm not a feminist because I shave my legs" kind of argument). Maybe if we define feminism as any behavior that is strong and outspoken and kick-ass -- that is, not conforming to conventional gender expectations -- we can get away from the "I'm not a feminist, but..." phenomenon.
On the other hand, I don't think this kind of behavior is *necessarily* feminist. I think feminism describes not only a way of behaving but also a change you want to see in the world. Something that is pro-active, not just reactive. I'm uncomfortable with some of the essentialist directions that this thinking can lead, in terms of saying that there are "male" and "female" ways of behaving. But I do think that there are certain basic values that feminism upholds (e.g. the worth of all people, inclusivity, a commitment to share power and resources, etc.) I don't think these values necessarily come more naturally to women than to men, but I think feminists are committed to working towards a better world where these values are reflected. As to how to make that world come about... that's a related debate about how change happens and whether "the masters tools can dismantle the master's house."
So I guess what I'm saying here is that while I don't support defining feminism in ways that are too limiting and I see the benefit of making it a broader category, I think if we broaden it too far, we risk making it meaningless and not focused at all on real structural change in the world.
This is an interesting -- and age-old -- debate that you've raised, Leah, about what constitutes feminism. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on this particular example, but I've thought a lot about this feminism question. In part, it comes down to whether or not you see feminism as an ideology or as a mode of behavior (liberated, powerful, fearless, bold, whatever). I think there can be something useful about defining feminism very broadly and non-ideologically -- it allows more people to identify with feminism in some way, rather than feeling that they can't be feminists because they don't toe some specific line (e.g., the old "I'm not a feminist because I shave my legs" kind of argument). Maybe if we define feminism as any behavior that is strong and outspoken and kick-ass -- that is, not conforming to conventional gender expectations -- we can get away from the "I'm not a feminist, but..." phenomenon.
On the other hand, I don't think this kind of behavior is *necessarily* feminist. I think feminism describes not only a way of behaving but also a change you want to see in the world. Something that is pro-active, not just reactive. I'm uncomfortable with some of the essentialist directions that this thinking can lead, in terms of saying that there are "male" and "female" ways of behaving. But I do think that there are certain basic values that feminism upholds (e.g. the worth of all people, inclusivity, a commitment to share power and resources, etc.) I don't think these values necessarily come more naturally to women than to men, but I think feminists are committed to working towards a better world where these values are reflected. As to how to make that world come about... that's a related debate about how change happens and whether "the masters tools can dismantle the master's house."
So I guess what I'm saying here is that while I don't support defining feminism in ways that are too limiting and I see the benefit of making it a broader category, I think if we broaden it too far, we risk making it meaningless and not focused at all on real structural change in the world.