Is feminism really so easy?

Known for Sabaat and today he starred in Sher, the recent rejection of feminism by actress Sarah Khan was handed over with occasional ease. “I’m one of the old times,” he told the independent Urdu. “I am a stay at home. I do not like to stand in large queues to pay bills.”

Among the Pakistani actors, it has become almost ritual to distance themselves from feminism. In this way, Sarah is part of an increasing list of celebrities that are at risk of being unexpected, misleading, brainwashing – or, perhaps more cute, a “pick me”.

But set it aside, for a moment, the alarming ease with which the “pick me” categories deal with non -popular women. Sarah’s observations can in fact be the most sincere celebrity that can afford. In Pakistan’s entertainment industry – and, in a variety of diplomas, far beyond that – any political attitude is a responsibility. But Pakistan’s entertainment scene also comes with his own strange set of restrictions: Given the sad state of narrative on all its small and large screens, feminism could write the end of domestic cinema and television as we know it.

Could Sarah embrace feminism and survive in this business? If all the internet requirements are a statement, then there is no expectation that it is challenging the tired industry: the family rape framed as romance, the deception of a spouse and the spouses crying, the bad laws in a loop. And yet, even those who claim that feminism rarely escape control. In another timetable, Sarah may call herself a feminist – and still ends up like Mahira Khan, defending Humsafar as a decisive feminist.

Unless she is waiting for a scenario that is aligned with her policy – a more feasible patience for veterans such as Sania Saeed than for the newer lot – Sarah, like many, has to navigate an industry with few real choices. Celebrities may not be anti-feminists as long as the anti-demolition, determined to keep all the doors open to a volatile landscape. In this cultural context, it may be time for the reflective impulse to reject them as unexpected or indefinitely. After all, feminism does not require credentials. Or so?

Incorrect feminist

Of all the categories that are launched to women who reject feminism, “pick me” can be the most accurate – not with frustration, but as a mere observation. These women are collected, or at least not falling. It is much easier to be a perfect anti-feminist than to be a feminist defect.

In 2025, the internet remains the main space for these discussions. There are many things – chaotic, coercive, connective – but it is not, from design, a place for dialogue. Instead of the coalition, we take temporarily in common with a single renewal.

Sarah’s observations, unfortunately, but unexpectedly, are rewarded. It wins the approval of many women, even more men, its corporate supporters and, more reliably, its algorithm and appetite for controversy. On the contrary, the claim of feminism will probably not win it for anyone – not even feminists. Consider, for example, the feminism of Priyanka Chopra or Gal Gadot, who always stops calling the genocide regimes they represent.

This is simply because feminism, unlike celebrity culture, was never for victories or perfection – both indicate a final destination, a tangible reward. But feminism is, and always it has been, a long, often exhausting project of alternatives. When Sarah says she is not a feminist because she does not like to stand in queues to pay the bills, it is difficult not to smile. Who has ever dreamed of dealing with bureaucracy?

However, in order to move on from personal suffering to structural criticism – to ask who is forced to endure such communities and who can be able to be excluded – it requires a job knowledge of order, capitalism and economic inequality. Sarah’s discomfort is valid. It has two options: repeat the kind, vague confirmations of “women’s empowerment” or be honest about what bothers it.

Abbreviation

It can be an unpleasant awareness, especially for those whose first exposure to feminist politics comes online: “correct” policy is not moral instinct and in fact requires work and access. Hard realities are also not always radical, not if you don’t find others to keep up.

Isn’t that the reason why we extend our mothers? Most would never call feminists, but we recognize in their lives the slow work of navigation, access and patriarchy. This grace comes from understanding that the name is something a privilege. Not everyone has the means or the language to do so.

Despite the many ways of practicing feminism, its language is still a matter of access and cultural capital – online and offline.

But even the language, in order to indicate that feminism must come naturally – without friction, no work, no mistakes – loses the point of any resistance movement.

At any given moment on the Pakistani internet, one explains, often eagerly, because the use of N-word is wrong, because Blackface is racist or because cultural credit issues. Often, this confidence to be corrected comes from the proximity to the speech is clarified. God forbids that someone asks why feminism is good or racism is bad. These are no longer just uncomfortable questions, but the bad attacks that feminists are too tired to answer.

A natural reflex in these possibly vain observations is to leave frustration or betrayal. It is a good strategy to deal with bad days. But good days have to come patience for a disappointing that takes its sweet time. After all, both the trumpets and the young feminists will find us in the same world of Shorthands.

In this world, there is no luxury of time and space to write if you lost it, when icymi is an option. We know that Instagram/Tiktok rollers perform better in less than 60 seconds, that positions x are limited to 280 characters and that long, boring text blocks belong to medium or linkedin. It is in this huge compression of the framework that many find feminism and anti-feminism that come very easily, more as a practice of practice. While one can survive the context and care, the other cannot.

That is why it simply should not matter if Sarah calls itself feminist or not. And no doubt, Sarah’s call a “pick me” is more detrimental than her observations on feminism. After all, saying that “I am a feminist” is just another shortography unless there is a corresponding place to understand what it means what it means.