Susan Sarandon has a new interview with Motto Magazine. I had to look up what Sarandon is promoting because it seems like she’s been all over the place lately. (I love to hear from her I’m just checking.) She’s in The Meddler with Rose Byrne and J.K. Simmons, about a widowed woman who moves to Los Angeles to live with her daughter. The trailer makes it look cute and I laughed a couple of times.
Sarandon has been making the most headlines for her thoughts on the U.S. primary election and the fact that she’s a Bernie Sanders supporter. I also support Sanders and this has caused some divisions in my own family, who have all voted for Clinton. I’ll definitely vote for Clinton in the Presidential election, I’m not a ride or die Bernie fan but I would rather have him as President. It looks like that’s not going to happen though. I’m ok with that as long as Clinton ultimately wins.
In this interview, Sarandon gives a lot of good quotes about her definition of beauty (she’s in People’s Most Beautiful issue) and what feminism means to her.
Motto: What do you wish you had known in your 20s?
Sarandon: I wish I had realized how beautiful I was. I didn’t even notice! I look back now and think, “Wow.” I look a little blank, not having lived as long as I have now—to me, that person looks a little unformed—but I didn’t realize I was as pretty as I was. Now, I tell people in their 20s that they should appreciate how they look now! …What do you think has changed about feminism since Thelma & Louise?
The brand of “feminism” has had a bad rap for a while. And I think that millennials are very happy to embrace and say they’re feminist, but I don’t feel that they have the need to push that label. I think it is something that is taken for granted. Men are feminists, too, and we have to rely on men—we can’t see it as “anti,” the other gender.Feminists are humanists. They have the right to choose who they vote for regardless of gender. … I see [millennials] having a better sense of who they are than I did in my early 20s. Believing that they can do anything.
The world is much more open in a lot of ways, and then you have the details, which are still catching up, like salary disparity. …When we don’t have to talk about it, that’s when I feel like we will have accomplished everything.
Kaiser and I have been talking about the fact that so many celebrities seem to be conflating the terms feminist and humanist, as if a humanist is a more inclusive type of feminist. I consider myself both, but I’m an atheist and I’ve always known humanist as a term for an atheist/agnostic person who cares about society. The word is most often used to describe a secular approach to humanity. I guess it could be flexible and more encompassing, but as humanism is currently defined I would disagree that feminists are necessarily humanists too. Some are, but they’re distinct concepts.
Here’s Susan at various premieres and events over this past week. She’s wearing a boot because she sprained her ankle skiing.
photos credit: WENN and FameFlynet
I’m sad because I really used to like and admire her, but lately she just grates. Will someone please tell her what humanist means? It’s embarrassing.
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.
It’s NOT a replacement for feminism………..
I’m a humanist and a feminist………..
I wish she knew that.
I just can’t with these idiots.
Batman had that line about you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain but with celebrities it seems to be you either fade out as intelligent and thought provoking or stay in the spotlight long enough to become deluded and confused.
Here we have exhibit A.
Perfect.
It’s almost as though humanist is becoming the go-to euphemism when you think saying feminist might frighten the (male) horses. Does my head in.
Celebitchy – a book recommendation for you and your boy: http://amzn.to/1r1Jr8R Really nice and accessible and actually *joyful* in how you might approach leading a principled life if you don’t have to do what God tells you because you’re not a believer. The British Humanist Association have sent a copy to every primary school here in Britain.
Thanks Sixer I made your link shorter! I will check out that book. I hope that the primary schools are letting the kids read it. I don’t think that would go over well here unfortunately.
Sorry, I should have done that with the link!
That’s sad about your schools. I can’t imagine even faith-based primary schools here would object to that book in their libraries. We have to teach evolution at primary school level here, and what we call Religious Education, you’d probably call Ethics or somesuch. Kids just get various ethical issues presented and told how the different religions approach them. The campaign here is to get secular ethical views included in the National Curriculum, so instead of saying Christians say this about X, while Jews say this, Hindus say this and Muslims say this, you’d also say humanists say this.
Looks like it’s on pre-order status with Amazon (USA).
One day maybe ethical discussions will says, “Christians say X, Jews say Y, humanists say Z, and in the best of all worlds, we’d all just say ABC!” IE the message that there is something in humanity that can support ethical choices, and that they do not have to be directed by any formal belief system whatsoever. The way we tend to frame it supports the notion that organized belief systems come first, rather than their channeling something that’s built in to social behavior.
Well say said, Sixer, but I feel like that has always been true. No disrespect to those here who identify as humanists, but I have heard that term throughout my life in the context of “non-confrontational liberal.”
How interesting. It’s all new to me.
“Non confrontational liberal” reminds me of the old term, “Limousine liberal.” : )
I see the point of the term humanist–it’s more inclusive and good to stress intersectionality and the belief that all humans deserve equal rights regardless of race, gender, or sexuality–but the problem is that it doesn’t do justice to the particular problems women face nor to the important history of the feminist movement. Nothing wrong with being a humanist and a feminist!
Yes. That is my issue with the recent rise in humanists. Its only used to soften the edges of feminism. This is why it’s hard to rake certain celebrity feminists seriously. They want to be feminists but noncontroversial; they want to be feminists, but first, protect theirbrand.
It’s sad to see how lowlifes like Rush Limbaugh have twisted the term by playing into stereotypes about angry women.
Unfortunately, he didn’t invent the stereotype himself.
Being afraid of being “feminist” just highlights the problem itself, because equal rights means equal power. It’s the message about power that is, I think, so threatening, because it’s been a winner (men)-take-all world for so long.
Too bad that even women with some measure of power and influence, like Susan Sarandon, seem to be falling for this.
One of the many rights women are asserting is the right to be angry. It’s justified. But anti-feminists and people afraid of women’s anger are trying to thread the needle by removing the part about sex-specific oppression and adding a part that seems gently, globally non-threatening (humanism).
Not much will change as long as we try to make it so an oppressed group has to be nice about it. Haven’t women had to do that long enough? I’m disappointed in what Sarandon is saying lately.
I want actors to act and singers to sing. Im at the point where id rather entertainers not give many interviews on their (often uneducated) opinions….
Hmmmm, I wonder if she will get as many comments calling her stupid and talentless as Beyonce did…. I’ll check back in 12 hours.
You do that………….
Oh honey, check back in one. We all know the game. Beyonce posts are magnets for…people. Sips tea.
Yeah cause a Susan Sarandon post will totally bring as many comments as a Beyonce one.
Absolutely! But the problem is people think being a feminist equals to man loathing, their idea of feminism is twisted for an example, an Indian actress priyanka chopra quoted she doesn’t need a man in her life except for procreating, everyone was applauding her for her feminist stance, if a male actor were to say the same he would be raked for it.
I love my boyfriend, but would make him a sandwiched if he asked nicely for it, would that make me less of a feminist?
Susan has been looking amazing. It is mindblowing that she is 70. Her face doesn’t have the fake, pulled look that the younger Christy Brinkley had from her facelift that when you look at her with all of her work gives off a little too young and done look for 60..
Susan has tightened her jawline years ago and whatever else she is doing is great. Her skin has a natural glow, not that heavy makeup, pasty look too many get for overuse of peels and laser, like Cher. I saw her in a recent interview and her face was not overbotoxed and overstuffed full of filler giving her a frozen look or unable to show emotions. To the contrary, her face was very expressive when talking. So she knows less is more whatever she’s done.
She wears minimal eye makeup She just looks so fresh and much younger than 70, but not overly done trying to look abnormally younger.
I was just going to google her age because she DOES look fantastic!! She looks young, but not freakishly so. Cher is an example of what not to do now, sadly. Susan is an example of done right.
And yay for a post dissecting what really counts – how a celeb looks lollll.
I agree with what she says about realising your attractiveness, I was not nearly as gorgeous as Susan when I was in my 20s but I look back at photos and think why the hell was I so critical of myself, I wasn’t bad at all. It is of course possible to still be gorgeous when you’re older – again, as per Susan – but it’s not quite the same thing. Hindsight….but she’s fairly daft on the feminist / humanist stuff.
Sorry but since she said how people should vote for Trump instead of Clinton if Bernie lost – I lost all respect for her.
If she truly was a feminist then she wouldn’t ever say Trump is better than Hillary.
I agree. And Gore was different from Bush, period. I’ve supported Sanders, but I’m having a very hard time with people threatening to withdraw from the electoral process if he is not their nominee. And I’m talking about people who are 60+ — this isn’t youthful idealism. A protest vote on their part could be every bit as costly as those votes for Ralph Nader (and I admire Ralph Nader). There will be other, better ways to make your voices heard this fall.
She didn’t say that though. She said a lot of Bernie supporters, possibly including herself, wouldn’t want to vote for Hillary, implying they would stay home and not vote (which I disagree with). But she didn’t say they should vote for Trump.
I like Susan Sarandon and think she’s intelligent and fearless when it comes to sharing her opinions but this one is just way off base. Feminism is not humanism. One can be a feminist and still have a deep-rooted belief in God, a specific religion and a spiritual afterlife whereas humanists don’t need a set of religiously mandated tenets to live by – they’re quite capable of living good, caring, responsible lives without religion interfering. But one can’t equate the one with the other in my humble opinion.
Susan, my dear friend, what are you talking about?
I support equal rights for women and yet my faith is still a very important part of my life and of my world view. I’m a feminist but not a humanist.
Strange how that works, huh?
I guess we don’t count. Actually, I think the problem is that she doesn’t understand the word she’s using.
I think you’re on to something, GNAT.
EXACTLY. I’m an atheist, which is not the same as a humanist. One is an absence of faith, the other is an ethical belief system that some people try to live by. I’m also a humanist. I’m also a feminist. These are three different things.
I think she is trying to help dispel the notion that being a feminist means being anti-male by relating it to humanism. Even though she may be using the term “humanism” incorrectly, I think its great that she is emphasizing that both men and women can be a feminist. I hear so many women think feminism is anti-male or think it means that women think they are better than men which is not the case. Its just a movement to give women the same opportunities as men and being paid the same as men for doing the same work.
The not so subtle reframing of “feminism” is making me both sad, worried and angry. It’s such a indirect but effective way of suggesting that women’s problem aren’t big enough to be worthy of special concern and my God, at this point it’s CRAZY that some even question that.
I used to like Susan but I’m not very impressed with the things she’s going around saying lately 🙁
Random, have any of you listened to trump lately? He’s becoming more and more liberal. Mr flip flop wants those votes
You know what bugs me about this attempt to turn feminism into humanism? First of all it’s wrong.
Red doesn’t mean purple just because the colors are similar in thought and humanism is not equality for all just because you see an ism at the end and human at the front similar to feminism.
Second of all if women who were in a time period where it would still have been socially acceptable to beat your wife could stand up and say, “No I need FEMinism and I do not care if it offends the good or bad men.” then I have no time for comfortable celebrity women to poo poo and whimper how since feminism has a bad rep they’re comfortable with humanism.
How can you claim to support feminism and not understand WHY the word is so contentious? Do you hear men complain about menstruation or mental illness? Then why do you take to heart comments that are suddenly so concerned about ‘equality’ by asking you to take a word that only LOOKS female exclusive and make it palatable to men? Thats 101 right there and it always interests me to see who misses the mark on it.
Excellent, Eternal. You captured the inherent contradiction in saying “I support equal rights for women but I won’t use the precise word that specifically means equal rights for women if it bothers you.” Undercuts the whole thing. Turns the clock back to that whole ‘nice girl’ thing. And all in the name of making it “palatable to men.” Like that’s going to help…
+1 on the “nice girl” thing. It’s so galling that people have a problem identifying with this particular ism because it starts with “fem”, kind of tells me all I need to know about that person regarding equality!
I think there is a general confusion in terms of what these two philosophies mean. Limbaugh is not a humanist or a feminist. But not all people who use humanism instead of feminism are doing so out of fear for what the one term might mean to the listener. Some people really don’t know the difference. So our job is to educate them.
Susan Sarandon has been in the middle of most feminists protest, so I am guessing she has a good grasp of what the term means. Perhaps she misspoke? Otherwise, I have no explanation. I am willing to give her the benefit simply because she has been so active in the feminist movement for so long.
That is how I feel. Susan’s earned her stripes, a mistake on her part doesn’t grate.
Its important not to confuse humanism and secular humanism. Originally, humanism was a renaissance-era intellectual movement against scholasticism. Secular humanism is just one of the many iterations of humanism throughout intellectual history. Humanism is an incredibly fluid term that has been embraced by people of faith, non-faith, and something in between for centuries. Now, unfortunately, humanism is just being distilled down into the “all lives matter” version of feminism. There is a reason to say “all black lives matter” just as there is a reason to say the word “feminism.”
Humanism is no longer a fluid term. It was a hundred years ago. But in this day and age, when people are using the term humanism, they are doing so understanding it to mean secular humanism. This is in large part because religious humanism is no longer an accurate term, given that the church is no longer in control of the monarchies and the monarchies no longer in control of the kingdoms.
Considering that people are now using it as a substitute for feminism, I would say it is still a contested term. It no longer means renaissance humanism but it also has meanings for many people beyond a shorthand for secularism (as evidenced by other commenters). I think we should take that into consideration.
This whole discussion is why I read Celebitchy.
This has been my understanding as well. I have heard it used in different ways and yet still be relevant to the core issues. It is similar to how feminism has been defined differently as society changes and new frontiers reveal themselves through time. Some will argue that the term is fluid and others may have a more literal definition its meaning.
The more people try to back away from the term “feminism,” the more I cling to it. Why are women who identify as feminist always compelled to specify, “but I don’t hate men!” That’s a given if you know what the term means. People who support LGBT rights don’t follow up with “but I don’t hate straight people!”
Besides, more than a few men have done some hateful things to women. If there were a few random women who hate men for what they’ve done either to them individually or to women as a whole … well, it only seems reasonable. Suck it up boys.