What happened to the salience of feminism? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 08, 2024, 02:59:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What happened to the salience of feminism? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What happened to the salience of feminism?  (Read 1219 times)
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
« on: April 22, 2024, 08:54:37 PM »

I’d argue feminism, however you want to define it, is a lot more salient to women today than it was just a few years ago. The prospects for mass movement feminism influencing political debate and legislation are growing stronger.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2024, 06:14:39 PM »

An underrated aspect of 2020 is how Hollywood lost credibility in terms of leading social movements. Whether it was #MeToo, BLM or the general anti-Trump fervor the public no longer looks to Hollywood for moral leadership.
People have been saying this for decades, this is hardly new.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2024, 11:03:20 PM »

An underrated aspect of 2020 is how Hollywood lost credibility in terms of leading social movements. Whether it was #MeToo, BLM or the general anti-Trump fervor the public no longer looks to Hollywood for moral leadership.
People have been saying this for decades, this is hardly new.
It’s cyclical. Sounds like you don’t deny the influence Hollywood has on liberal politics though.
I think wealthy people in Hollywood *can* impact how much visibility and attention their pet causes get. From my perspective, this is most apparent in the vast nonprofit and NGO ecosystem that raises awareness for what we might call liberal political causes.

In terms of “moral leadership”, I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to. Hollywood has always been hit or miss when it comes to consensus for progressive or liberal ideas. For example, while many figures in Hollywood were strong proponents of rights for gay couples, there was little obvious opposition to the 2003 War in Iraq (Michael Moore famously received a frosty reception when he won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine).
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2024, 11:58:51 PM »

Just saw this, so I figured I should respond:

Hollywood was much more organized in 2017-2020.

How are we measuring this? I imagine Biden’s election lowered the salience of Hollywood’s most outspoken actors’ pet causes rather than any actual decline in Hollywood’s political organization, whatever that means.

Quote
They flexed their media muscle pushing #MeToo into the mainstream.

This issue was (and remains) very contentious. There were certainly Hollywood stars that advocated vociferously for Me Too, but recall that the foremost opponents or “enemies” of that movement came from within Hollywood, particularly at the executive level.

Quote
They got Time Person of the Year.

I was Time’s Person of the Year in 2006. And besides, I don’t particularly trust their editorial board to make sound judgements about America’s political economy.

Quote
They made a big impact on the discourse around Brett Kavanaugh, let alone Trump.


This is true, insofar as interest groups or individual actors are concerned; the same could be said for most other professional interest groups and associations that seek to influence political debate.

Quote
They turned BLM from a few small protests into a nationwide movement. Practically all of your favorite celebrities endorsed that. The Black Square movement was turbocharged by Hollywood.

Disagree. That was the work of activists on the ground (for better or worse) between 2014 and 2020. Hollywood was only marginally attached to these decentralized  and sporadic protests. The “black square movement” was a *reaction* to the salience of BLM in May 2020, not a forerunner.

Quote
In 2018 and 2020 they were huge donors and supporters of the Democratic Party.

These sums sound large, but other interest groups have consistently matched or exceeded the contributions of various Hollywood personalities or executives. Car dealerships and their interest groups, for example.

Quote
They helped focus the party on college-educated women, which is clearly paying dividends.

How so? This has been an ongoing trend since the late 80s and has little correlation with political advocacy from Hollywood.

Quote
It’s hard not to see how activist Hollywood was 5 years ago. But backlash was coming. DeSantis is persona non-grata on this forum due to LGBT but the pushback to Disney didn’t come out of nowhere. And Hollywood has clearly toned it down.

I really don’t see how DeSantis’ quixotic battle with Disney (and hilarious campaign for the Presidency) is all that relevant to a discussion about Hollywood.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,152
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2024, 09:44:10 AM »

I honestly think the "white feminist" label really damaged its salience amongst non-whites and made it vulnerable to the likes of Andrew Tate etc.
This is absolutely true. The move to specifically single out white women is a “progressive” way for people to engage in vulgar sexism.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.