The #MeToo movement has so far managed to unite a coalition of women that would otherwise be divided over politics; in fact, its exposure of persistent sexual abuse and harassment has been boosted by the problem’s broad resonance — across parties, industries, socio-economic lines, geographic regions.
Unlike other women’s causes, #MeToo has not been defined by its partisan affiliations.
But now in Hollywood, the very same poisoned well from which #MeToo sprung forth, leaders of the Time’s Up movement, apparently emboldened by their success at the Golden Globes, are more openly speaking the language of the feminist Left. At the news of its founding earlier this month, I looked into Time’s Up and found it to be commendably substantial. Though clearly informed by the industry’s overwhelming liberalism, the organization seemed poised to do good work overall. I think that’s still the case for now, but in an op-ed published Monday morning, activists Tarana Burke, Ai-jen Poo, and Monica Ramirez — each of whom walked the Golden Globes red carpet with celebrity actresses last week — veered into highly disagreeable territory, asserting that pay inequity is a form of violence against women.
Here’s the relevant paragraph:
The Golden Globes felt historic. Because it felt that perhaps gender equity might be within reach after decades of work to bend the arc toward justice, but we were quickly reminded that violence comes in many forms, from physical and the emotional to the economic. While Hollywood is trying to address its problem with sexual violence, we want to underscore that the failure to pay women fairly is another way of exacting violence on women workers by devaluing their worth and contributions.
Nice to know that the problem of sexual violence has been solved, and now we can move on to another unrelated issue. Oh, wait — of course that isn’t so at all.
It’s not surprising that feminist activists think this way — expanding the definition of violence has become popular in progressive circles as of late. But it’s the very flavor of radical, extremist rhetoric that has crippled the contemporary feminist movement, making it unpalatable to so many women who do not affiliate with progressivism. (Of course, this is far from the first flare of radical rhetoric from #MeToo leaders.) At a moment when the industry is dealing with so many allegations of rape and assault made against powerful men, to elevate the plight of a wealthy actress earning less than a wealthier actor (in this case, Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg) to the level of physical violence is just ridiculous.
To maintain its momentum, #MeToo needs to maintain its broad base of support, not cut out reasonable people by diving down leftist rabbit holes. Unnecessary alienation of non-progressive women is not helpful to the cause. Leaders of the movement should respect that.
Doing so, however, would force feminists to acknowledge the alienating power of their own radical rhetoric, and that’s something they have failed to accept for decades.
