Thursday, February 23, 2006

Why can't activists just let go when the case is over?

Okay, I am probably going to rant a bit in this post. I watched the movie North Country last night. It was a pretty good movie. It was actually set in Northern Minnesota where I grew up which probably made me want to see it even more. It is a pretty good story about a sexually harrassed woman who tries to stop the treatment. All in all a pretty good movie.

So anyway I complete the movie and I want to hear more information on the original case that occurred that was the inspiration for this movie. I start watching the documentary that is included on the DVD and guess who is one of the first people on there: spokesman for NOW. I let it go because I figured that maybe they actually did something right and helped in this case. Then here she comes again. This time she is saying what a great victory it was and how more people need to get involved because we still have a long ways to go. This is where I kind of lost it. The women in the movie are being sexually assaulted not just harrassed. I may be nieve but I don't think that a lot of sexual assault is occurring in the workplace anymore.

Now, my big issue with this is the message that is conveyed that we have a long way to go. I think that the case brought up in the story was the long way to go. I believe that the women in this story were extremely strong and deserve a lot of credit for what they did. Women did not have the rights in the workplace then that they do today. Why trivialize their contributions by saying that it was just a start? In the places that I have worked women are treated with respect. Now, I understand that things still happen but the law protects women now. I guess my point is, why is it that once the problem is dealt with activists still believe that "they have a long way yet to go". This appears to be the case with women rights, civil rights, etc.

I am defintely not saying that women should be protected, they should. I just question why activists have to be militant about changing things when the things have already been changed.

Could it possibly be because the campaigns happen to make some of these people very rich and they don't want to cut down the money tree?

No comments: