Small narratives behind a meta narrative in 'Bombshell'(2019)

Today, I failed my driving test:(
It could be because I ate seaweed soup in the morning, brought banana to the testing center (there is a Korean saying that when you do these you  fail because these are enough slippery to fail exams), or I watched 'Clueless' (1995) so many times that I couldn't  help me be influenced by Cher "who can't drive".

So, I went to a theatre to watch women "who can" to inspire me. 
I chose 'Bombshell' (2019) for today, which is based on the accounts of the women at Fox News who set out to expose CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment. Here, it is safe to say that the film includes lots of feminism elements. 

I always say that I am not a feminist since the word itself is too consumed nowadays even though I often think deeply about "what it is to be a woman in these days." Also, I am not really into these topics, so I frankly write what I think about this film. 

What female characters do in the story is definitely a right thing that should be praised. No woman would truly feel comfortable being objectified and they fight against the evils who abuse their power to the weak. Moreover, the film that spotlights courageous acts can encourages those who had experienced same thing, and can create new movement. 

However, there are a scene that I cannot get out of my head. 
It is the moment that the main anchor, Megyn Kelly wondered if she should cooperate with the first accuser of harassment Gretchen Carlson.  Megyn asks opinions to her team members, and one of them, a female character answers to the question. "The enemy is aiming at people around you."

This character is the most obsessive for me because she is said that she needs to leave the U.S. for visa issue if she fired from FOX.  She is not the only one who opposes to Megyn's decision for her career. (I don't really know about the fact but based on the film) There are more women who are sexually harassed but be silent for a reason. 

Feminism films mostly focus on women who fight for the gender equality and its justice. However, I believe that the film shouldn't  miss the point that someone new became "other" behind for one's justice. Meta narrative can easily hide small narratives. In the case of this film, small narrative can be the story of the woman who has made an great effort to be in FOX but needs to leave there, or that of a man who cannot afford to support his family anymore. Of course, it could be anything else besides who haves and have nots. 

There is a famous quote by Gayatri Spivak, a famous feminist critic, "can the subaltern speak?" I have never read the book deeply, so I don't know clearly what she talks about here, but my answer to the question is above. 

"No, they can't because when the subaltern get their voice, then they aren't 'subaltern' anymore".

It might be impossible to include all voices in a story, but there is no story that can be mistreated. I believe that every single story is important for each person. 

The film ends with a line by a composite character, Kayla Pospisil who is sexually harassed by Roger and accuses him, "these issues are not considered seriously until that the things happen to oneself, one's family, or friends."

However, here I would like to end my post by saying that one cannot consider seriously what is happening behind one's justice until it is occur to one's surroundings, with the fear that my words newly create "other" here.