5. The Spice Girls-will someone please explain how this could have possibly been misinterpreted as empowerment?
4. Tyra Banks-look, I know she does some awesome stuff, but she also humiliates young women pretty consistently on her show and refrains from any real interventions on ANTM when it comes to mental health issues...oh and there was that dead girl photo shoot
3. Diamond companies who advertise the "me ring"-Wow. So not only do the majority of you have heinous labor practices that affect women and children in mostly third world countries, but now you're trying to sell me the products of that labor through a bullshit idea that a diamond ring on my right hand somehow symbolized empowerment? Wow.
2. Sex and the City-I know I'm going to get some shit for this, but I have to ask how we can consider something truly feminist that has NO CLASS or RACE ANALYSIS. I enjoy it. I'm down to watch it. But do we have to call it feminist?
1. Sarah Palin-I don't think I need to explain. But if I do, just read here.
I know you've got some of your own that you'd like to add in comments...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Top Five Feminist Posers.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11020
Sex and the City as a whole isn't feminist, but it has its feminist moments. One of the most important things a TV show has ever said to me was a quote from Carrie - paraphrasing here, but she said, "The most important relationship you'll ever have is the one you have with yourself. If you find someone to love the you that you love, well, that's just fabulous." That touched me at a really important time in my life, and it's gone a long ways towards my current attitude about relationships, regardless of the fact that the women on the show never really did stop their hunt for the perfect man.
I think sex and the city has A WHOLE LOT of prejudice against women. It reinforces a lot of stereotypes.
1 - Remember the very first episode of the show? Carrie says "I wanna have sex like men". Some might see that as empowering, but I think it only stands by the false notion that men are the ones who naturally want sex and women just want romance and commitment. So, when a woman has sex without commitment, she's not actually being a woman, she's being "like a man". I think it's wrong to keep going with that stereotype, as we're all human beings and both men and women enjoy sex without commitment sometimes, as well as both can enjoy romance.
2 - I think that, deep down, the main message of the show is against feminism. You see, those women have money, carreers and independece, yet something's missing.... A man! That'd be the best and most fulfilling thing for all women!! The whole show is about how they want to be loved by a man. Except for Samantha, they all get sad cuz they can't find "the one" and the clock is ticking. So, again, the show is reinforcing the stereotype that says that, in he end, all women want is to get married and have babies. They do sleep around, get themselves careers and all that... But that's just something they do to occupy their time while prince charming is not around yet.
3 - They're portrayed as futile. Charlotte works at a gallery and Miranda is a lawyer... So they're smart, right? They must care about other things beside love and men. Yet, that's all they talk about during brunch.
In the movie, Carrie says something like "let's talk about what really matters: labels and love". Oh yeah, cuz nothing else matters. If you have a Louis Vuitton bag and a man to call your own, you suddenly have nothing else to worry about! The world has no problems! It's so futile and selfish it makes me sick. It's just another show saying women are extermely superficial and we say it's empowering? I don't get it.
4 - The movie is even worse than the TV series. People laughed their asses off in the theater when Charlotte said she wouldn't eat the food of a 5 star hotel in Mexico "because well... it's Mexico". Being latin-american, I didn't find it funny at all. I really don't think that's necessary. There's also another scene where Miranda is lost and she says "look! A white man! Let's follow him!", instead of asking info from people of color.
Want some more racism? There's a part when Kate Hudson's character tells Carrie "one day this bag will be gone", hinting she might steal it. Then Carrie says "I know where you live".
Also, there's the part where Samantha supposedly gains a little weight (I wouldn't even have noticed if they didn't say it). The reaction of the girls (and the gay friend, Anthony) is horrible. They get shocked and say "how did you let this happen???". They reacted to her weight gain more seriously than when she had breast cancer!!!
I could go on and on about this, but this comment is getting a little long. I just think the media portrays SATC as the "symbols of modern women and post-feminism" (I'm using quotes cuz a magazine put it exactly that way) because they want us to relate to those setereotyped women. If we do, we're keeping the patriachy alive.
High expectations for a comedy don't you think?
Its a microcosm of white, upper middle income American women...nothing wrong with that...and its pretty entertaining. As the awards, movie, & fans attest.
I don't think we have to completely shut down our common sense when we're entertained. I think it's possible for a show to be entertaining and NOT racist/mysoginistic/homophobic/etc.
Oh... and just because a show is popular and wins awards, it doesn't mean its content has quality or that its message is healthy for society.
I'm sure you can remember at least thousand shows that were popular, but not necessarily good.
Not to point out the obvious... but when you mention the actress in Sex and the City the movie, you did mean Jennifer Hudson, not Kate Hudson... right?
Also, when Charlotte doesn't eat or drink anything in Mexico besides her own water and pudding SHE SHITS HERSELF. All of her friends think she's crazy!
I'm not a fan of the "Samantha gaining 5 lbs is a big deal" story line, but I know if some of my friends came to a party without makeup... or on the flip side, if some of them came in high heals and in a dress, I would notice. Best friends notice when a friend changes their look. Granted I might not notice 5 lbs... but I would notice just about anything else.
I guess I'm just cool with Sex and the City. They're women (and men! Stanford anyone?) who work hard for their lifestyles and want to be loved. They don't all have conventional love lives, but they all love on their own terms. That's ok with me.
Oops, yeah I meant Jennifer Hudson. Thanks for pointing that out! :)
Its interesting that you mentioned that Charlotte shits herself cuz, when me and my friends watched the movie, there was a little bit of discussion about that. Some of us (me included) thought that she shit herself because she ate way too much pudding. But some of my friends got a little bit confused because she shits herself RIGHT AFTER she opens her mouth and drinks a little bit of the mexican water during the shower. And when that happens, Carrie voice says: "for a moment, she forgot where she was and drank the water", something like that. So there's an open space for double interpretation. Did she shit herself cuz of the pudding or cuz of the mexican water?
I agree that best friends notice when their friends change something about her looks, but the reaction was a little bit over the top for me. As I said, I watched the TV show too and I think the reacted more seriously to the weight gain than when she had breast cancer... They make it seem like 5lbs is such a big deal! That would make Jennifer (ha! now i got it right!) Hudson's character what? An elephant?
No complaints here- that list is pretty solid to me.
As far as Sex in the City goes, I can see how it's sexually empowering. But in all other ways it encourages some tired old stereotypes. Rich, White women, obsessed with shoes, shopping, status and are completely self-centered and superficial. No thanks.
I love this list. I really enjoy Sex and The City, and I recently had a friend ask me how I could do so as a feminist. I guess he's been given a few answers, but most of them involved people saying it was 'ironic'. I told him honestly that I know it is not at all a feminist manifesto of any kind, so it makes me feel better enjoying it for pure entertainment value, haha.
Someone I would add to the list is The Pussycat Dolls. I don't know if they've explicitly said that they're feminist, but the way they've been marketed as this 'female empowerment' bugs the hell out of me. This goes for any aspect where it's decided that the only way a woman can feel sexy and empowered is through her body and sexuality.
Pussycat Dolls- that's a good one! I think they did actually use the word "feminist" at one point.
"This goes for any aspect where it's decided that the only way a woman can feel sexy and empowered is through her body and sexuality."
I agree what you say here about feeling empowered, but how on Earth does one feel feel sexy without involving her or his sexuality?
What fictional television programs analyse anything? The purpose is entertainment. They may raise questions, but analysis is a bit out of any show's domain.
Six Feet Under, to start with.
But how does it analyse? I'm really curious. As far as I'm concerned that kind of approach needs an essay or a good debate. I can't even imagine how it would be possible in the context of a story.
I don't know if analysis is necessarily the right word, but you can reveal how ridiculous many cultural attitudes are through your storyline and character development - it doesn't have to be an explicitly stated message.
Aside from characters literally discussing/analyzing politics, religion, racism, homophobia and the like - the show itself breaks apart the idea of the wholesome TV family and forces us to see each character for how s/he really is. Each of them is flawed, capable of good and cruel acts equally. On an episode to episode basis, it's often hard to decide with whom you empathize because characters you pitied last week, you hate this week.
Obviously the biggest analytical point of the show is how much death and grieving are treated as a commodity in America and how we still have such an archaic view on death in general. It's still something that most people just don't want to talk or think about- yet it will happen to everyone. And they drive the point home by opening each episode with seemingly random death that is intrinsically linked within the plot, also suggesting the relationship and connection of all people.
I could go more into detail about each character or important plot points in the series, but I could go on forever. There are also specific moments of feminism too- particularly whenever Kathy Bates guest starred and/or directed.
Buffy! Can't believe no one mentioned it yet.
My favorite show EVER.
The Wire
Bosom Buddies and Just The Ten of Us
Dexter!
I watch Dexter, but maybe I don't have my feminist glasses on when I do. What are your thoughts about it?
Oh, Dexter wasn't meant as an example of a feminist show, but just an example of fictional television programs analyzing things and not just entertaining, since Ithika was skeptical that they could.
Mad Men
Also The West Wing, even though it's not running any longer. The debates the characters had on the show were built-in analysis, even if they didn't always resolve the issues. And issues like race, class, and gender were usually raised by one or another of the cast members, even if only in passing.
South Park
Scrubs. Both a comedy, and it had a lot of class/race/gender analysis. It wasn't a constant, but Dr. Turk had some awesome moments dealing with racism, there were some good moments about health care problems, there's a lot of stuff about sexism in medicine, and the occasion one-offs, like exploring the guy with OCD.
It's very analytical, and very entertaining.
Battlestar Galactica
Sex and the City has feminist moments, and deals with feminist issues such as female friendship, sexuality, power, but the thing about the show that always bugged me is that the women are still ultimately focused on MEN as a source of happiness, status, and fulfillment. Not very feminist.
I didn't even think about the female friendship part - they always had time for each other regardless of the fact they were dating people. Nothing pisses me off more in real life than my girlfriends who disappear for months when they start dating someone, or can't come out for a drink with girlfriends without dragging the boyfriend along. Not feminist, and so not cool.
And looking back, it was sort of a relief to have a show about women where they weren't all mean and backstabby, a la the current Gossip Girl trend.
Then you have the L Word in which relationships and romance are still major issues. Is that, then, anti-feminist?
I don't think that desiring a man and wanting romance is inherently anti-feminist.
What I find offensive about the show is the archetypal characters. The "slut," the "good girl," the "career woman" and Carrie "Sum of the Parts" Bradshaw. And that doesn't offend me as a feminist as much as a human who likes things to be written in a smarter, less transparent way.
I haven't seen the L Word, but I don't think it's so much the sex of the person you're seeking happiness from so much as it is the obsessive I'm-only-happy-through-someone-else thing that's anti-feminist.
Obviously a lot of entertainment mediums deal with this, because entertainment is driven by conflict, and romantic conflict seems to be the favored type (how often do we hear that shows get boring once a couple gets together?).
We're told through romantic comedies and the like that you're not complete without someone else, that you have to find your better half, etc. etc. I think a goal of feminism, at least for some of us, is to recognize that it's not all about pairing up, there's some self-acceptance and self-love that's necessary for a fulfilling and healthy life, too. When television shows focus a little too obsessively on finding The One, male or female, that starts to get anti-feminist for me.
But what is it when a man is seeking "the One?" To me this is a human issue, one with which we, as people, are forced to grapple. I can see how resisting this aspect of society fits into a feminist agenda, but the problem itself isn't inherently an anti-woman or anti-feminist problem.
You know, you've got a point about the L word, but I think as a whole women have been distracted and disempowered by the notion of romantic love. "Love" has been promoted for so long as what women need to focus on, as opposed to work, and I think this is a problem. But I appreciate your point.
wow - i tried making this point in one of my classes and everyone was baffled (and obviously expected that I had a very very disturbing lovelife). Thanks for making it here, because I think there's a lot to it. the whole notion of romantic love around people build their lives (through marriage, and constant searching) is also quite a new and western concept I always expected it to be treated with a bit more suspicion, especially as it sort of stands at the top of the 'good things' ladder (like human rights, or equality, or whatever).
Having men as "a source of happiness, status, and fulfillment" is not necessarily anti-feminist as long as they are not the primary sources.
To me, the anti-feminist part of SATC is the nearly slavish devotion to fashion and high heel shoes.
Feminism is a different thing, a different parameter, than race or class. One could criticize the show for leaving out questions of race or class but that doesn't make it anti-feminist. That would be like saying that white, upper economic class women by definition cannot be feminists. If Courtney is saying that I would simply disagree.
"But the thing about the show that always bugged me is that the women are still ultimately focused on MEN as a source of happiness, status, and fulfillment. Not very feminist."
Except as it applies to the Charlotte character, I don't agree with this statement at all. Samantha had no desire for men other than sexual gratification and resisted like hell when her model lover wanted to get more serious. Miranda, it always seemed to me, was more driven by her career and later by raising her child. As for Carrie, although she always seemed to be in the midst of some relationship angst, always treated her friendships with the others as the greatest source of happiness and fulfillment for her. One of my favorite moments in the series occurred in one of the last shows when Big meets with Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte to ask them to help him get in touch with Carrie. He tells them, "Look, you three are the loves of her life. Any guy she's with will be lucky to come in fourth."
I don't think so . . . I see Samantha's character as being resistant to love, even though she does fall for it a few times, and I see the show as depicting her as deficient because of this. She is alone, the show argues, and is "less than" because of her independence. Charlotte, of course, is seeking love. But so are Carrie and Miranda, in my view. Carrie is always ruminating about Big and Aidan and the other ones--were they the "one" ?? Miranda, too, seeks the "one". I'm not suggesting that the show has no feminist leanings--I think it does. I just see the emphasis on romance as being very regressive and somewhat ridiculous.
I think that Charlotte and Samantha, being the two extremes, (because we all know that human female behavior exists on a spectrum with "slut" and "virgin" as the extremes) are the least happy and deliberately the least attractive (by which I mean their character, not their physical attractiveness.)
I think this is accidentally anti-feminist at worst... And it's definitely shoddy writing.
How does "the show" depict Samantha as being less than or deficient? Are you saying that not being in a romantic relationship automatically makes one deficient? Otherwise, the character has a successful, satisfying career, has fulfilling friendships, and has the kind of romantic/personal relationships that she has chosen for herself. How does that make her deficient or "less than"? And yes, the others all spent much time seeking "the one"" How does that make them anti-feminist? As I said before, other than Charlotte, the others sought and found happiness and fulfillment in other aspects of their lives. I understood your original assertion to be that each of them fixated on being with a man to the exclusion of other aspects of their lives, which I agree would be anti-feminist if that were true. Now you seem to be saying that just the act of seeking a romantic relationship makes them anti-feminist. Nope.
Um, yes to the Pussycat Dolls. Even the name makes my skin crawl.
But aren't you just mad because your boyfriend wishes you were "a freak" like one of those dolls?
;)
For the longest time because of the name I got them confused with the Cheetah Girls, of all things.
Hell. Yes. The Spice Girls! Argh!
I. Love. This. List.
I know I sound lame, but I have expressed similar ideas to my "open-minded" friends, and I get blank looks OR even worse, pats on the head and an, "Aww...that's my little uber-feminist...".
No, seriously...it's depressing.
Sorry, I usually try to be wittier, but I just had to express how refreshing it is to not be alone with my ideas!
Girl Power t-shirts a la "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!"
some more examples from david and goliath: http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/index.php?mode=HB
Totally agree. Turning around and degrading and using violence against someone else is NOT feminist.
Suicide Girls.
I agree! Even though it may have started off feminist (woman founded/ran, everyone was friends, etc) it is no longer the case. The business was bought-out by a dude and I've heard tales of some girls not getting paid, or paid less than agreed upon. Also, it claims to be an "alternative porn", when all it does is make White punk rock a "normal alternative". Every girl is White, thin, pierced and tattooed. They're just as much a "type" as your regular porn star.
I just think a lot of girls go into it, thinking it's empowering and not realizing it's the same old crap in a different uniform.
"same old crap in a different uniform" - exactly.
Agreed.
What's the group called... Feminists for State Control of Reproductive Organs?
Oh Tyra Banks! I could write a novel on how antifeminist she is, all the while pretending to embody it ideally.
I distinctly remember her show, after that whole "Tyra Banks is fat" drama in the media. She came out wearing a bikini (decidedly NOT fat) and whined a little about how she loved her fat body. Um.
Her show and everything I have seen from her is completely shallow. She treats the women on her show and their issues with the most patronizing attitude as she preens in front of the camera, pretending to listen and "help."
I loved Sex and the City but it certainly was not a feminist show in and of itself. It had it's moments, as others have said, but just because the main characters were sexually empowered women who were friends with a few gay guys doesn't mean it's a feminist show.
"Get with the times, Greg. There's a new thing called Women's Lib. It means women get what they want."
THE TWILIGHT SERIES
Hell yes! I was hopeful with reservations about the first book, and it all went down hill from there.
Actually I don't think the series even pretends to be feminist. Do you? I hate it too! Or rather I hate the popularity of it. Ok both.
What do people think of the feminists of the late 60's and 70's (I will refrain from using the term 'second wave')? Do people really find empowerment from Solanas (founder of Society for Cutting Up Men), Daly (a 90% reduction in the male population is needed), Morgan (porn is the theory, rape is the practice) Brownmiller (rape is a phenomenon by which all men keep all women in a state of fear) or Dworkin (the man is his phallus)? I am not, (repeat NOT) saying that any of these four are posers, and I recognize that their blatant misandry (and anti-transmen/transwomen stances as well) was in response to thousands of years of misogyny that runs deep in virtually all intellectual traditions, religion, philosophy (from Aristotle to Nietzsche and beyond) and forms of art, but do modern day feminists (i.e. modern day feminist women) still benefit from these decidedly anti-sex, anti-man, anti-trans theorists? I'm curious to hear people's thoughts and/or rebuttal(s).
I really think they do, because even if we don't agree with them, they got the conversation going in new directions, and make us think about things we might overlook.
If I speak for myself, I can only say that I deeply respect each of these women you mentioned as they, as argued above, got the discussion going.
I also think that my version of feminism is highly contextual - things that happen to me in my daily life or love life have mssaively influenced the way I experiences reading certain texts. I am not in general a big fan of psychoanalysis, for instance, yet reading irigaray and cixous was a great comfort to me after coming out of an abusive relationship. Confronted with rape or street harassmant, for instance, I do think of dworkin and mackinnon - although I do not agree completely with their analyses there is something to those viewpoints that have sensitized people to unacceptable yet mostly hidden or 'natural' relations of power between men and women.
so i don't object at all to some feminists' misandry - it's all served a purpose and in some instances, these may lend support/understanding.
The post is off topic and uses the term "misandry." I'm sensing a troll . . .
Posers, trolls....I have been reading this blog for about a year, and the ONE thing that bothers me about it is that whenever someone writes a post another person does not agree with, or lacks the comprehension to understand, the author is automatically labelled as a troll.
Emeraldcity makes an interesting point, but maybe fails to grasp the importance of radical theory as a means to explore alternatives to the status quo. Each of these women's ideas, and the struggles they went through to defend themselves, have been valuable contributions to feminist theory. Examine their life's experiences, and the contexts in which their theories were developed, and you may gain some insight into what they were getting at.
My pick for biggest feminist posers: those who defend the prostitution of women as a source of empowerment. Dressing up sexism and calling it equality does not make sense to me. Now the pro-prostitution propaganda patrol will probably call me a troll.
By the way, funny how so many people name fictional characters as posers.
5. The Spice Girls-will someone please explain how this could have possibly been misinterpreted as empowerment?
I will. When I was a kid, if you sat me down to talk about the patriarchy, the nuances of institutionalized sexism, and the thousand ways to deconstruct advertising and media to see what they were really saying, I would not have understood, and may even have been turned off. If you were to play me a BIkini Kill track I would have hated it, being raised on the Beatles and Steely Dan. If you tried to outline third wave feminism I would not know what the fuck. But if you gave me five women with different interests, outrageous style, catchy songs about staying true to yourself and your friends over men any day, and who always seemed to be having fun just being themselves, I'd be interested. I picked up the "girl power" catch phrase and meant it. I did not look at the Spice Girls and see a corporate machine, I saw friends having fun and doing their thing without men.
I'm not going to say that the Spice Girls were the be-all end-all of feminism. They're problematic. But my experience with them as a child was not - they were my only girl icons in a world of boy bands and I remember being seven years old, looking up at their poster late at night and thinking that I could do anything. As an adult, I'm astounded at how much they meant to me then and how much they were able to communicate to me as a young girl.
What's more, I don't mean to be the ambassador for every Spice Girl experience ever, but all my feminist friends listened to them in their youth, and did NOT grow up to become vacuous, servile, clueless "sluts", as many critics predicted they would. Their love of the Spice Girls was simple the base to a feminist philosophy.
Pop-feminist has an excellent post on them, PLEASE give it a read. She outlines the Spice Girls far more articulately and brilliantly than I ever could:
http://popfeminist.blogspot.com/2008/07/hi-c-ya-hold-tight.html
"In the latter hypothetical, these [fan] girls are living the ideology of the Riot Grrl movement. They are being loud, unapologetic, adorning themselves in the tropes of femininity with that wild pastiche of the adolescent girl, in a girls only, girls rule, fuck you everyone else, zigazig-ah bitches, culture not strictly of their own making, but made to conform to their requirements of it."
I completely agree.
The Spice Girls exploded onto the scene when I was in my early teens, and their 'Girl Power' message appealed to the budding feminist in me. Like gracie-bird, when I was repeating that catchphrase, I MEANT IT. That's not to say I don't now see problems with the Spice Girls, but I'd still argue their influence on my developing a feminist conscience was more positive than negative.
I would also argue that they were my introduction to sex-positive and fat feminism. Before any of you get on your high horses, no, I don't think any of the Spice Girls were fat and yes, I do understand they were promoting a somewhat normative view of women's sexuality. STILL. There was a time when Geri and Emma were clearly more full-figured than your average pop star, and yet they went around trodding in their short babydoll dresses and not even a hint of shame. And they defended their right to want sex, talk about it, get some and enjoy it.
Lastly, I would like to point out, at an age where I was discovering my own sexuality, the Spice Girls were about the only 'product' targeted to my age group that allowed me to explore that side of myself.
Well,
as the Pussy Cat Dolls and the Spice Girls go
at least they aren't dancing in Burka's
So
yeah, for some women, they are radically liberated in that they are not ashamed of their bodies and seem to genuinely enjoy dancing, singing and making ton loads of money.
They have all created their own franchises too haven't they?
Does Madonna qualify as a feminist?
Tyra Banks is a business woman making banks with her company- the content is mainstream B.S., but, for a model, she sure is making a lot of money and gaining some power in the industry of her choice, now isn't she?
Also,
She produces, directs, and has creative control of her brand-
that's more than most of us can say.
I am not a fan of spice, pussy cat, sex in the city (blech) or tyra
but, they are all business women
and I can relate to enjoying dance and
actually- even to feeling a lil addicted to it.
Well,
as the Pussy Cat Dolls and the Spice Girls go
at least they aren't dancing in Burka's
Whoa there. Not cool.
Ok
let me put this in a way that is more easily understood by a western raised woman.
I was not allowed to dance. I was not alloowed to wear short sleeves, jeans, pants of any kind, short skirts, mid lenght skirts
while I was being raised in the states- because my relatives in the "old country" were fully covered.
Upon visiting them, yes, I realized they do dance - when the men leave the home they are bound to unless they have a male escort!
Yes, many do enjoy the freedom of being covered, but, it's not a choice- it's the LAW!!!!!!!!
And yes, at home, they are often uncovered.
SO YES, dancers who show their bellies with pride, shake their asses, wear high heals, and allow their hair to flow in the wind
seem pretty effen liberated to me.
NOw,
they may offend some mis informed, scared of being un PC feminists
It may offend my cousins and women in similar circumstances
but, that does not deny MY EXPERIENCE
and frankly
would it be MORE Feminist if they were ashamed of their bodies? Unaware of or ashamed of the power they have to play with the male gaze and take advantage of it (Madonna)?
So, take my very different perspective for what it is-but, don't you dare should on me
It's not about being ashamed of their bodies, its about their bodies being a commodity. You said yourself that they are all successful businesswomen. Alright, that's their choice. But they're not dancing because they're liberated, they're doing it because it's their job.
I do respect and hope that I understand your experience. Please understand the experience of Western-raised women:
Uncovering is mandatory. If you want to be sexy, there is a script: bare midriffs, high heels, lipstick, blah blah blah. And, there is intense pressure to be sexy (but still nice!) There is nothing inherently wrong with bare midriffs, high heels, or lipstick. There is nothing inherently wrong with burkas. Women of all cultures should have the choice to cover or uncover, be butch, femme, nelly, whathaveyou. We don't. To you, forced by culture to cover, uncovering is liberating. To me, forced (ok, encouraged) by culture to uncover, and then dismissed by culture for having uncovered, uncovering is oppressive.
btw, my opinion. I don't claim to speak for all Western-raised women.
I don't necessarily think that having your own business makes a woman's product feminist. If you're a woman who's earning big bucks alongside men, and having control over your business, and yet peddle products that are not feminist, I don't think that counts.
I think that's more like Sarah Palin, where you're benefitting from feminism but yet not contributing to it.
I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, but your comment seems to take an uber-capitalist approach.
As far as not being ashamed of their bodies, you have to determine where the line is between not being ashamed of it and putting it on display for male approval/the male gaze/etc. I think we've discussed that a lot on this site, and it's not always an easy answer.
"Does Madonna qualify as a feminist?"
Actually, I would add her to the list of feminist posers. Maybe that will put me on some people's enemy list, but I think she ended up doing more to set women back than push them forward. The longer she was around, the more obvious it was that she wasn't actually interested in any kind of message- that any positive thing she had done was a happy side effect of doing whatever was most shocking at the time (best example probably being the video for Like a Prayer).
And now that she's a bit older and the general public is more desensitized and harder to shock, her attempts to get attention seem more desperate.
I absolutely agree. Madonna exploits rather than deconstructs restrictive sexual stereotypes -- if they didn't exist, then her flouting of them wouldn't earn her nearly as much money.
"Well,
as the Pussy Cat Dolls and the Spice Girls go
at least they aren't dancing in Burka's
So
yeah, for some women, they are radically liberated in that they are not ashamed of their bodies and seem to genuinely enjoy dancing, singing and making ton loads of money."
I think you need to check yourself. and educate yourself. This is a blatant ethnocentric privileged ignorant statement.
women in burqas are quite capable of loving their bodies, not being ashamed of them, and enjoying singing and dancing. and not all women of the world aspire to be sexualized images of capitalism.
tell that to my father.
Tell that to women who are beaten for not covering.
Tell that to your assumption that I am American born and raised.
When I danced it was a RADICAL move on my part.
I had to hide it from my family.
Women who dance seem liberated to me, not to you, to ME
So STFUAL to me too.
You know, there IS a way to have this conversation without telling people to STFU.
thank you.
and retired dancer, i acknowledge that dancing can be liberating and burqas can be oppressive. but for many women, dancing and hypersexualized images can *also* be oppressive. and for many women the burqa (wearing the burqa or being able to wear the burqa) *can be* liberating.
I don't think you have a lot of room to talk. What you said was out of line and *you* need to educate *yourself*. Read up on women's oppression in the Middle-East by women who were actually there. And there is gads of it. "Persepolis" and "Reading Lolita in Tehran" to name a few. And yes, a lot of women feel oppressed when they are threatened of being beaten for showing the slightest amount of skin.
As for those Spice Girls and their jobs, did it ever occur to you that they *liked* their jobs.
i dont know if you read my comment before replying to it. but of course it occurred to me that the spice girls like their jobs. and of course it occurs to me that burqas can be oppressive. what i said was:
"i acknowledge that dancing can be liberating and burqas can be oppressive. but for many women, dancing and hypersexualized images can *also* be oppressive. and for many women the burqa (wearing the burqa or being able to wear the burqa) *can be* liberating."
i'm arguing for a nuanced understand that acknowledges that there is not ALL good or ALL bad in sexualization, or in burqas.
"well at least they're not dancing in burqas' connotes some sort of hierarchy of "liberation" that i refuse to endorse.
and i do think i have room to talk. not only from the fact that this is a *discussion* board, but also because beyond the reading i have done (thanks for the recommendations), i have done a large part of my fieldwork in muslim countries and spoken to many women regarding the complexities of the burqa. i'm not trying to argue that retired dancer's experience wasn't valid - of course it was - but there are complexities regarding the burqa which disallows the absolutist "burqas are always oppressive" statement.
obviously i mistook retired dancers "at least they aren't in burqas" as the statement of an uneducated troll. for that i apologize, but without the context she provided *after* the fact, and given the nature of trolling on this site, i made an honest mistake. this mistake does not take away from the point i am trying to make.
which is:
women in burqas are quite capable of loving their bodies, not being ashamed of them, and enjoying singing and dancing. and not all women of the world aspire to be sexualized images of capitalism.
dancing can be liberating and burqas can be oppressive. but for other women, dancing and hypersexualized images can *also* be oppressive. and for other women the burqa (wearing the burqa or being able to wear the burqa) *can also be* liberating.
retireddancer said:
So STFUAL to me too.
TO ME. Not to you.
And I think she has a point, and we should learn from her perspective.
I can see your point about the Spice Girls.
Tyra however annoys the fuck out of me. I really didn't mind her dead girls photo shoot -- I think I actually stood up for her -- but I've seen clips of her show in which she talks about sexuality and her ideas are completely ass-backwards. Women who have too much sex are sluts, or worse, "manly." She's famous for doing some really awful editing. Violet Blue was on her show and wrote about how much she was manipulated.
Tyra is not a feminist, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to her as such.
I'm going with Christina Hoff-Sommers AKA the woman who wrote a book bemoaning that feminism had been "stolen" by, well, near as I can tell, people who actually wanted to put feminist theory into practice. Hoff-Sommers apparently prefers I much more retro approach to the whole thing. Oh yeah, and it's actually males who are oppressed by females. But she's a feminist! She swears!
Strippers. Has anyone ever seen a stripper talk about how stripping is so empowering to her as a woman and a feminist? I have and I think it's total hogwash. When did the idea of completely sexualizing oneself for the benefit of some horny man with cash in his hands become a feminist one? I'm all for sexual empowerment, but in a holistic way. Strippers aren't seen as holistic and integrated people. They are sex objects. The end. If sliding around on a pole for leering males makes someone feel empowered, well, groovy, but it doesn't make them a feminist.
Just to let you know, I know for a fact that there are a lot of ex- and current strippers who are active members of Feministing.
Fine. But stripping in and of itself is not a feminist action. I'm not saying that a stripper cannot be a feminist, in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian can also be gay. It just doesn't MAKE one a feminist.
Stripping doesn't make them feminists- but you seem to be implying (by the purpose of this thread in general) that stripping makes them specifically UN-feminist.
Stripping is UN-feminist, not necessarily strippers per se, although I find their rationale ridiculous. Excuse me for not spelling it out in simple monosyllabic words so that my intention would be more easily understood.
Also: The Pussycat Dolls and Madonna are feminist posers, but not strippers?!?! You're an idiot.
I think this conversation is a little more complex than can take place in the comments section of another thread, but there are definitely archived threads that spent a lot of time on this topic.
about sex and the city...
in the book female chauvinist pigs, ariel levy does a great job of explaning why sex and the city isn't about feminism but instead causes there to be female chauvinist pigs.
the characters are just shopping for sex and the whole notion of u can bang ur head against the wall to try to find a relationship or screw it and be a man. carrie carries a condom around, samantha has an ego like a man, charlotte has 2 dates in one night. they act like men but still conflicting of acting like a woman. we idealize them for selling sex and that isn't feminism
i totally agree! and recommend the book to everyone
Camille Paglia, anybody?
Oh, and PS: I was wary of weighing in at all on this topic, because I think some of what's going on here is unnecessarily divisive and pretty irrelevant. (The Spice Girls? Really? How many years ago did they last get called feminist, or anything else for that matter?) However, since the only women I have ever read Paglia praise are Madonna, Sarah Palin and, well, Paglia, I don't exactly feel guilty knocking her. God knows she makes a living of doing it and little else.
Yeah, I was surprised to see Paglia DIDN'T make the list. Knocking off mostly pop culture icons in a list of feminst posers is a lil easy.
that last sentence should read "a lil easy in my opinion." at the end.
Maybe a feminist poser is a woman who denies different definitions of self, denies women the respect they deserve for making their own informed choices. Maybe it is the poser who assumes she knows more about theory, more about the male gaze and feels her way of shifting the dominant paradigm is the only way.
Maybe that is a poser.
Maybe the poser thinks she is being inclusive while being exclusive.
how come twilight didn't make this list?
Whoever said Twilight was feminist? Certainly not its author...
Fine. But stripping in and of itself is not a feminist action. I'm not saying that a stripper cannot be a feminist, in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian can also be gay. It just doesn't MAKE one a feminist.
I disagree.
Spice girls was amazing for me when I was like 11 or 12. I seriously thought of it in a feminist way. I remember thinking how awesome it was to be a girl with the help of them.
I mean, I am actually quite thankful that I was listening and looking up to spice girls instead of, say, britney spears, or whoever else in the mainstream.
So in my eyes, spice girls are feminist because it helped shape MY feminism as a young'n. It made me be happy to be a girl as a preteen when it's very hard to feel that way.
I can understand why others might not feel that way, but that doesn't make it any less feminist for me.
Sex and the city may not be a 100% perfect idealistic feminist TV show, but I do think it's progressive compared to all the other TV shows out there. There are anti-feminist parts, but we can't ignore the feminist parts too.
It just sucks that feminists on this website make such a big deal about shows (sex and the city, tyra banks) that try to be feminist and yet they make less of a big deal about other shows that are EXTREMELY anti-feminist.
I completely agree with you on the Spice Girls. I had a very similar experience when I was 7 and 8 and they had just exploded in the US, and I totally credit them for a tiny portion of my feminist nature today.
So, because Sex and the City is a story about a group of women who happen to be white and upper class, it can't possible be feminist? I wasn't aware that for a show/movie to be feminist it had to discuss every possible aspect of humanity, every possible race and class combination. Sorry, my bad.
Jennifer, I agree! Also, I would disagree that SATC has ABSOLUTELY NO race or class analysis. While those issues were certainly never central to the show, they did emerge every now and then. In particular, I'm thinking of Miranda and Steve, one of the central romantic relationships of the show. The tension in their relationship, especially early on, was always due to the fact that although Miranda was an upper class attorney, Steve was a middle class bartender. This class tension lasted throughout the series until the final season when Miranda and Steve were both dating someone from their own class but ultimately wound up with each other. Additionally, one of Samantha's many relationships early in the series was with a black man and it ended when his sister, who had previously been Samantha's friend, told her she didn't want her brother dating a white woman. It wasn't the best written portrayal of interracial dating I've ever seen, but it was there.
that episode where miranda invites steve to be her date to her office party and buys him a suit (since he doesn't have one) and he flips out and refuses to accept it makes me fume for days. i like that they addressed this issue where class and gender intersect.
obviously SATC has MANY deficiencies, but i do enjoy the show for entertainment and i think that just putting out there that 30-something women can have their own, independent lives, still maintain strong friendships with other women, and have few hangups about sex is culturally significant, if decidedly low-brow. i know a lot of women of varying ages who have been influenced to be way more comfortable with sex issues because of that show.
I agree with you on 4, 3, and 1 but...
"5. The Spice Girls-will someone please explain how this could have possibly been misinterpreted as empowerment?"
Easy: they earned their own paychecks and didn't get killed for dressing the way they do in public.
"2. Sex and the City-I know I'm going to get some shit for this, but I have to ask how we can consider something truly feminist that has NO CLASS or RACE ANALYSIS."
Lots of things that are truly feminist have no class or race analysis. Letting both girls and boys learn to read, not forcing girls or boys to marry against their will, etc.
This will date me, but I remember when Alanis Morissette hit the scene w/ "You Oughta Know," and the song was hailed as some sort of feminist anthem. It still annoys the fuck out of me: a) it reads as an obsessive rant against the guy that done 'er wrong -- doesn't she have better things to do than threaten to haunt the dreams of some cheating tool? And b) why does she have to paint the sexually adventurous woman (herself, who will "go down on [him] in a theater") as a vengeful psycho? It seems very Fatal Attraction to me, and man, do I hate the message that movie sends about sexually aggressive women.
I have to strongly disagree about the spice girls. I was 9 years old when they were at their top, and their music and overall message of girl-power: beliving in yourself and your sisters, and never limiting your dreams- was MORE than empowering for me. Yes, unfortunatley they proclaimed these messages while dressing distastefully, but reguardless I feel like their message was a strong one for young girls.