Angela McRobbie introduces a new
concept to the study of gender: post-feminism. According to her text, feminists
nowadays do not wish to be identified as such, even turning away from the
concept and thus have started a new kind of search for the equality of genders.
She writes how “...those utterance of forceful non-identity with feminism have
consolidated into something closer to repudiation rather than
ambivalence...this is the cultural space of post-feminism” (McRobbie, p 3).
I agree
that feminism has changed from when the movement started and now society has
entered a new era in search of equality of the genders. I am not sure, however, if I believe that this
“new feminism” started in the 1900s. I do not even think that we have entered a
period of post-feminism yet. It seems like there are many people, even in our
generation, who still believe that in order for there to be equality among the
genders women have to become more like men, instead of the other way around,
for example. I believe this to be part of the traditional feminism, thus
marking its existence among the few post-feminists of our era.
McRobbie,
however, makes some very good points when it comes to the treatment of the body
and sexuality in feminism and post-feminism. She writes how “the body and also
the subject come to represent a focal point for feminist interest...”
(McRobbie, p. 2). I think both of the movies that we have watched for class are
a good example of this. In Barbarella, we were able to make a feminist critique
from the idea that Barbarella’s body is used as a form of “entertainment” or
sexual focus. On the other hand, Alien demonstrates how a body, like that of Sigourney
Weaver, is asexualized. In spite of the movie including a scene in which the
actress strips to her underwear, the science fiction nature of the movie
imposes an asexual theme or tone, as we discussed in class.
She
continues to talk of sexuality as having a part in “self-consciously sexist ads”
like the one starring Claudia Schiffer. I found the analysis of this
advertisement very interesting as I believe models nowadays can be proof of the
new feminism, which I find to be more equal than the traditional idea of women
being more like men. As McRobbie writes, Schiffer has been known to be one of
the “world’s most famous and highly paid supermodels” (McRobbie, p.5). She is
also shown to be stripping on the ad out of choice. These two ideas together,
and the fact that the “power” of supermodels come from being spokeswomen for
the fashion and makeup industry show how women do not have to turn away from
being feminine in order to be independent and equal, in terms of opportunities,
to men. I know that many can disagree with this idea, but I believe that true
feminism (or I suppose post-feminism) must be based on creating same
opportunities for both genders, not making women believe that in order to be equal,
they must be more like men (thus turning away from ideas of makeup, fashion, etc.).
A woman, as Giselle Bündchen proves for example, can be a feminine, stylish and
still a super powerful businesswoman in today’s world.
While I agree that in an ideal world, advertisements like Ms. Schiffer's would stand for sexual liberation and feminine agency, I strongly contest the point that such advertisements and imagery in the present sociosexual climate are anything but a sign of the continued oppressive sexualization and undermining of women. Certainly, the ad mentioned does frame the character's stripping as a conscious, personal choice; however, in the larger world in which the ad aired, the commercial was created and received on the problematic premise that "sex sells" -- a contemporary truism that speaks to the dominance of imagery featuring sexualized women. The character is presented as happy to be stripping for her own pleasure, but this is nothing more than a dismissive, even flippant response to the feminist ideology that contests such imagery. Far from presenting a truly "equal" woman, the ad's producers are making the argument that while no-fun feminists will endlessly toil away in the pursuit of quashing sexy imagery, this character is an example of a woman who is liberated from such prudish values and strips not for a man but for herself.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, I strongly argue that the ad is far from feminist, and functions to discredit the aims of feminism rather than advance it. As a queer feminist, I am certainly looking forward to the day when sexually suggestive imagery of women is not demeaning but liberating; however, in a world where women's bodies continue to stand for blank canvases for male fantasies, such visuals continue to reinforce and lend power to the systematic oppression of women.
Michelle makes a good point, and I find myself agreeing with her.
DeleteIt's an interesting conversation (or sometimes argument) on "agency" and feminism. On one hand, we should support women and how they present themselves. Recently, there was a controversy when Annie Lennox called Beyonce "feminist lite" and made the statement that "Twerking is not feminism.... It's a sexual thing that you're doing on a stage; it doesn't empower you" (1). Similar to responses in class, being on a "stage" or "billboard" doesn't mean there's bodily agency at play. In the Wonderbra billboard, Eva Herzigova's character is looking down to the street below, sexual and confident (2). But that's just Herzigova's character. Her portrayal in this advertisement comes from industry and societal demands, not her own person expression of sexuality. Like Michelle said, it's the "sex sells" marketing formula.
On the other hand, Lennox received backlash from her statement, saying that she's policing sexual expression of another (in this case black) woman's body. It also blurs the line of exploitation and building a personal brand. Does Beyonce's dancing come fro herself, or from an industry that demands female musicians are always sexually provocative? Are Herzigova and Schiffer using their body and acting skills, or are they being used as sexual objects?
McRobbie raises a good point, that "for male viewers tradition is restored or as Beck puts it there is ;constructed certitude,' while for the girls what is proposed is a movement beyond feminism, to a more comfortable zone where women are now free to choose for themselves" (3). Regardless of the personal choice of the sexualized person, the image as a whole condone's the act of objectification. While I agree that sexual objectification is (sometimes physically) dangerous and damaging, it's a difficult line to walk when it comes to supporting women who feel attacked for their choice of presentation, especially for women in popular culture. It's impossible to differentiate a woman being sexualized in the public spotlight when she probably wouldn't be in the spotlight if she is not sexual.
(1) - Leight, Elias. "Annie Lennox: 'Twerking Is Not Feminism.'" Billboard, October 21, 2014.
(2) - McRobbie, Angela. "Post-Feminism and Popular Culture." 258.
(3) - McRobbie, Angela. "Post-Feminism and Popular Culture." 259.
Continuing this discussion on the possibility of empowerment through sexuality, I want to bring the conversation to porn. In her article, McRobbie seems to condemn pornography and other forms of sex work as sites of postfeminist rejection. McRobbie cites the “ironic normalization of pornography” and female reporters failing to criticize lap dancing clubs as evidence of “a hyper-culture of commercial sexuality” that involves the “repudiation of feminism invoked only to be…dismissed” (McRobbie 5). According to McRobbie, participation within these industries and the failure of other women to condemn them are evidence that “the new female subject is, despite her freedom, called on to be silent, to withhold critique” (McRobbie 6). Thus, McRobbie sees the ubiquity of sex work and pornography as representative of a society that has embraced dismissive postfeminism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like Zoe points out in regards to Annie Lennox and Beyoncé, this condemnatory perspective does not fully represent the possibility of empowerment and feminism in sexuality. This past year, much hoopla surrounded the ‘Duke porn star’ who, following much harassment on campus, publically outed herself in various media sources. In her articles, Miriam Weeks, aka Belle Knox, declared that she is a feminist, a sexually active woman, a student at a prestigious university, and a porn star.
In a new five-part documentary web series, Becoming Belle Knox, Weeks explains her perspective on the industry. While she readily admits problems with the pornography business and prejudices experienced because of her occupation, overall, Weeks feels empowered by her decision to make porn. According to Weeks, porn has allowed her to become “a strong independent women” by reflecting her agency, femininity, and sexuality (Allen). Weeks asserts that “with porn, everything is on my terms. I can say no whenever I want to. I can do what I want to. I can do what I don’t want to. I’m in control. I like the assertive, passionate person that I’m becoming because of porn.” (Allen).
Thus, instead of reflecting a repudiation of feminism and the quieting of the female voice, Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox embraces feminism, empowerment, activism, and sexual agency though porn.
Article source: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/the_3_biggest_myths_about_pornography_debunked_by_belle_knox_partner/
Iszy makes a really good point, one I find really interesting because I just read an article on Everyday Feminism about the sex industry (commercial sex and porn, among a few other things) about the oversimplification of America's view of the sex industry and sex workers. (In case you're interested: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/myths-people-sex-industry/) In America, we tend to view them as both victims of their circumstances and as criminals, while that is true, there is a spectrum of people working in the sex industry, and there are plenty of people who chose to go that route.
DeletePlacing this conversation in the context of the time makes it even more interesting, part of what intrigued me about the McRobbie article. She wrote in a time now commonly known as third wave feminism, generally about the expansion of feminism across boundaries of race, socioeconomic class, country of origin, etc. It was thought that women had basically achieved economic and sexual equality that was fought for during second wave feminism. I think this is part of the discourse that spurred the post-feminism ideology McRobbie is discussing.
Nowadays, feminism seems to be concerned with a lot of different questions, not the least of which is the question of feminine sexual agency. To me, feminism today is (and to some extent, has always been) the right for women to choose any path they wish in life. No avenue should be closed or discouraged, and as a whole, society should not look down on any woman's choices.
I'm going to make a very obvious statement, but it is one that I think often gets forgotten when people talk about whether or not an action is "feminist". Whether a specific action is "feminist" (empowering, giving agency to women, etc.) depends critically on the context of that action. So for me, it is not difficult to see Beyonce's dance moves as feminist because she does not seem to be forced into them in any way. She could quit making music today and she would have plenty of money and influence to continue living her life. Jay-Z would keep bringing in cash, and she has a family already revered by society. Similarly, being in porn may feel like a choice for some women; namely, for women who are in a position where they feel like they could also choose to make a living off of something that is not porn. I found Harris' article is particular to not recognize this fundamental aspect of choice. It also can be used to explain her paradox of whether or not teenage pregnancy is a choice. In some cases, it clearly is not (rape, for example). In others, it may be a choice, particularly if the woman feels like there are other things she could do in her life, if she is not in an abusive relationship, if she has access to birth control, etc. I think that in all of these articles, it is important to keep the actions and the advertisements that they analyze in their proper context, as I don't think you can general an action without a context as "feminist" or not.
DeleteHi everyone! I've enjoyed reading Olga's post all of your insightful comments about it. I've been really trying to grapple with my own views on this tension regarding agency and feminism. I'm inclined to agree with much of what Michelle said, and I tend to align with the Foucauldian idea that choice cannot be extricated from governing systems of power and ideological discourse. While Claudia Schiffer may have chosen to be in the advertisement, what kind of discourses governed her choice? -- Prevailing sexist ideas that normalize the sexualization of women? Patriarchal standards which cater female sexuality to men? Capitalist commodification of women's bodies in the fashion industry? Plus, "agency" still does not absolve the ad of social and cultural ramifications, as the imagery it presents still reinforces the discourses I named above -- the ad doesn't exist within a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteYet given my viewpoint on this, I have to challenge myself because I am unflinchingly pro-Beyonce. I don't find the two examples (Schiffer and Beyonce) to be completely analogous, but there are similar complexities about agency and feminism to be found. Beyonce isn't my feminist role model by any means, but I found Lennox's argument to be quite reductive; I think Beyonce's doing good things for women and women of color and I still admire her as a feminist:
But Beyonce's feminism…is evolving, offering her a language to understand what it means to be a black woman in this moment in history with the level of power, capital and sex appeal that she possesses…And what I learn from her and appreciate her for is that she provides a grammar for unapologetic black female pleasure in a world that only loves black women's affect, verve and corporeality, when white women like Iggy Azalea, Katy Perry…adopt and perform it (taken from this article, which is one of my favorites: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/feminisms_ugly_internal_clash_why_its_future_is_not_up_to_white_women/).
I think Zoe raises an excellent question when she asked whether Beyonce's dancing comes from herself or from an industry that demands female musicians be sexually provocative. And though I love how Beyonce exerts her own black female subjectivity through performance and also find it to be valuable work, I suppose I also must challenge myself to not view her in a vacuum as well, and consider whether her performance also reinforces sexist ideology and objectification. Of course, I also don't want to fault women for gaining power within the limits of patriarchal/sexist/racist boundaries and following industry standards; in this case, I find criticizing women to be less productive than criticizing institutions and industries which sustain oppression themselves.
Finally, I want to share this semi-relevant article entitled, "The Myth That Womanism Is Only About 'Empowerment,' that maybe someone might read if they're feeling particularly bored. http://www.gradientlair.com/post/95491249808/womanism-not-only-about-empowerment
And I also want to share one of my favorite tweets that arose out of the Beyonce-Lennox controversy: Here's the part racist white women don't get. WHY THE FUCK WOULD TWERKING HAVE TO BE "FEMINIST" anyway, you fucking jackass? "Is a banana feminist?
Oh! And this: http://stillalittlekid.tumblr.com/post/101116157569/steinems-segun-oduolowu-dragging-annie-lennox
DeleteFirst of all, I really love that we’re having this discussion about feminism because it’s one that I personally grapple with all the time – the line between empowered sexual choice by women and the larger context of a sexist hierarchy that values women’s bodies first. One of McRobbie’s arguments I had the biggest problem with was her assessment of the Wonderbra ad. I agree with Michelle that even though model may herself be a powerful woman in control of her own life and choices, the ad itself is still sexist and that can’t be “forgiven” just because one understands the context. Especially since the ad is selling a product meant for women, i.e. a bra, and directing it towards men with the line “Hello Boys,” (258-259).
ReplyDeleteI also struggled throughout the article with the entire idea of “post-feminism,” which McRobbie says “positively draws on and invokes feminism as that which can be taken into account, to suggest that equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasise that it is no longer needed, it is a spent force,” (255). The idea that we’re past a time that has a need for feminism and that equality has been achieved, while preposterous to me, is certainly a modern mindset for a large number of people. But just like the idea of a post civil rights era, the notion that we are in a gender equality utopia and therefore can comfortably poke fun at sexism and objectifying women ignores reality.