How do you appease a feminist? You can’t. Case and point: the backlash over feminist “Ghostbusters” by feminists.
Third-wave feminists — a swath of women (and sad men) who dedicate their lives to important issues like petitioning for period emojis on your keyboard — are at it again, complaining about the “Ghostbusters” movie reboot, feminist edition. According to The Guardian, it’s cool the new film is comprised of an all-female core cast, but why does the “regular” ghostbuster have to be black?
Yes, really, this is their complaint.
In the perpetually-offended land of “intersectional feminism,” not only are so-called women’s issues (like killing a baby in the womb) up for dismemberment, but all other issues which forcibly fit their leftist, social justice warrior agenda too. Therefore, the strife of a black character in a feminist, girl-power film being “regular” is a huge issue. Or something.
Guardian contributor Janessa Robinson begins her predictable rant by complaining that the female cast lacks diversity of skin color.
“When Twitter began to buzz that the first ghostbusters reboot trailer had been released, I was anxious to see if it would soothe my uneasiness over the casting of three white female leads and one black woman as the sole representation of ‘diversity’ among the eponymous heroes,” writes Robinson, adding, “With three leading female characters, the film features no Latina, Asian or Indigenous women and simply opts to fulfil [sic] its black quota as a nod to the original storyline.”
Then Robinson zeros-in on black SNL star Leslie Jones’s character, Patty Tolan, a transit worker from the Metro Transport Authority; Patty is apparently stereotypically “regular” and not a scientist like the rest of the female ghostbusters.
“The trailer juxtaposes Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon as three experts in each of their scientific fields, then we cut to Jones. She enters with: ‘I’m here to join the club. You guys are really smart about this science stuff.’ This limits her character to an academically aloof, street savvy black woman who is apparently only allowed in the crew (and in the film) because of her familiarity with New York City,” writes Robinson.
Upon the ridiculous criticism, Jones herself has come out and defended the character, saying, “Why can’t a regular person be a ghostbuster?”
Jones, under the impression that feminists are rational people, is met with pushback such as this from Robinson:
And she is right, a regular person should be able to be a member of the Ghostbusters team. But we have to ask why the only “regular” ghostbuster has to be black. Again. Why is blackness conflated with “regular”, essentially designating the white characters as irregularly exceptional people?
Robinson adds that it’s “reassuring” that Jones sees no problem with the role, but “we cannot ignore how racism and sexism limit the representations black women see of ourselves to characters that fall far too flat in comparison with our real-life, wide-ranging intricacies.”
She continues, explaining that the new feminist reboot is guilty of “praising white women’s access to roles that challenge patriarchy yet simultaneously harm black women through perpetuating racist tropes can only be feminist if the word has no meaning.”
Where white women stand on the backs of black women, and other women of colour, to gain success and power, feminism is not present. And the claim that the film somehow represents the practice of feminist casting and characters can only hold true if you do the mental gymnastics necessary to deny the fact that black women are women, too.
This angry feminist concludes that she will not be going to the theatres, “paying to watch a film that shrinks black womanhood for the ease of the white gaze in its marketing.”
Lesson learned: you can’t win. Stop trying to appease third-wave feminists.
Watch the sexist, racist Ghostbusters trailer below.