As if feminism itself isn’t already (somehow) a contentious problem, creating “This is Exactly What a Feminist Looks Like” Tshirts (cooperation between ELLE Uk as well as The Fawcett Society) isn’t just a step in the appropriate path. Why? Please read our Editor’s Note the answer to the sweatshop claims of Fawcett Society.
Enter the “This is Exactly What A Feminist Looks Like” tops which you may have seen on the torsos of a number of the most indemand guys in Hollywood to increase consciousness with this movement (in the guise of consumerism, needless to say, but we are able to save capitalist vacations/plans for another time). In theory, feminism, the concept of getting powerful guys to spread the word about, and looking to normalize, seems just like a decent solution to draw more guys to join up with the cause which, sadly hasn’t been the easiest job to do. And of course that these around $70-$80 tshirts may also be raising money for charity. Seems just like a strategy that is possibly acceptable?
Well, but for the teensy small section concerning the whole “these-tops-were-made-in-a-sweatshop” thing. Which, I guess, is useful and somewhat significant to the discussion of feminism, given that a lot of garment workers so are taken greatly benefit of, and are marginalized girls trying their utmost to make ends meet for his or her loved ones. It is astonishing how simple it’s, as customers, to not think about where our products come from. Scratch that, it is very frightening. The states in sweatshops are pretty broadly understood should you only do an easy google search, therefore it wouldn’t normally be required to again go through what these horrid states would entail here, but alternatively to comprehend the problem in accommodating the creation of “feminist” tops by used girls.
While Fawcett promises to have started an investigation to the feelings on unethical practices that has reasoned that such declarations will not be exact, (because a brand would undoubtedly need to confess to hypocrisy, right?) the Daily Mail appears to have gotten to a different decision: girls within their factories are being handled in a way counterproductive to the garments’s recommended message. Bringing in less compared to minimum wage isn’t just breaking the fundamental human rights of those girls, but nonetheless, it also contradicts the aims and objectives of feminism as a way of motivating and empowering girls. And this raises significant questions for the feminist movement -established societies: Does feminism, as a movement, just extend to white, American girls? Is it not your duty to think about the message your cash is sending to fashion firms’ mass exploitation of marginalized girls all over the world?