Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

d4rk wrote (edited )

Even with the anti-marriage theme is also comes with another aspect that of sacrificing the family life for financial success, yes it is all fine and feminist until she hegemonizes an industry with her fur products that she has to kill kid animals for. It isn't the villain archetype nor is it the anti-marriage theme, its her business practices that makes her as bad or much worse than the men in her industry,

She's on my shit tier list with Susan B. Anthony, Kamala Harris & Margaret Thatcher.

6

[deleted] wrote

5

d4rk wrote

I'm not "blaming" feminism into a character either, I'm just saying we should becareful of who we give that epithet to. Saying "the first woman...." &c. is not a factual basis for one to assume that one's a feminist.

Think of Phyllis Schlafly, she is often portrayed in current popular media within the air of feminism of which she is not, she was vehemently against feminism yet we praise her for being this strong woman fighting against yadayada. She is not a feminist at all.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

d4rk wrote

  1. Yes, just playing "evil women in positions of power" then labelling them feminist and portraying them as feminist girl power material[1]. It's just justifying the redpills.

  2. You just cited the citation.

2

[deleted] wrote

5

d4rk wrote (edited )

I'm simply saying that there are women that coopt the brand of feminism for personal gain as well as to whitewash history. To do so in any context would tarnish the esteem of feminism. Cruella is part of this trend.

Unless they wholesale change the perspective ala Maleficent or changed Cruella's line of work there is no way to just slap the label of feminism on her, punch the ceiling and calling it a day.

3