It didn\u2019t start with her, but Ariel Levy certainly did
package it: the \u201cI\u2019m not my mother\u2019s
anti-porn feminist but I still think what you do is WRONG!\u201d feminist who apparently still can\u2019t stop watching the Pussycat Dolls, Girls
Gone Wild, and reading Playboy (I guess all in the name of research). And\u2014I
really feel bad for her\u2014she still thinks that every single girl in the world is
trying to look like the latest Hollywood It Girl and\/or Fashion Model who is \u2026
finish my sentence \u2026 SKINNY and WAIFISH!<\/p>\n
Since her \u201cgroundbreaking\u201d book Female Chauvinist Pigs, it\u2019s as though a whole new generation of
writers have found their favorite point of reference. I\u2019ve heard an endless
barrage of the same tired clich\u00e9s about bored strippers, Pussycat Dolls who
think they\u2019re empowered (God forbid!) and Playboy Bunnies who\u2014get this\u2014still
like themselves. Thanks, Ms. Levy.<\/p>\n
In the otherwise fantastic new book Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Power & A World Without Rape,
Javancia N. Harris writes the following in her essay \u201cA Woman\u2019s Worth\u201d:<\/p>\n
\u201cDon\u2019t get me wrong, if a woman
wants to strip, pose nude, or whatever else, it\u2019s her prerogative, but don\u2019t be
oblivious about what\u2019s really going on here. No matter how good you feel about
your body or how comfortable and fun your photo shoot may have been, a Playboy
spread is simply old-fashioned objectification of women, not a new wave of
feminism.\u201d She goes on to say, \u201cWomen are in these magazines to help \u2018readers\u2019
enjoy themselves sexually. The woman is not a participant, only a tool, and for
me, there\u2019s nothing empowering about that.\u201d….<\/p>\n
Well I have a proposal for us feminists. I think we need to
get away from talking about what IS and IS NOT empowering. We need to stop
thinking we know who IS or IS NOT empowered, especially since the conversation
usually centers around women who are naked on camera\/use our bodies
sexually\/participate in sexualized contexts and doesn\u2019t talk about all the
other jobs women can do that could also be disempowering or destructive (um,
CEO of evil petrol company anyone?!?).<\/p>\n
We can\u2019t speak for or
from other bodies and there is no one answer about what IS empowering.<\/p>\n
We may even need to get away from talking about
\u201cobjectification\u201d at all. Some of this talk is becoming simply mundane. Some of
it is downright offensive\u2014as if we could speak for other bodies at all, as if
we that right. Instead, I think we need to talk from our own bodies about what we know
and what is challenging and empowering to us. ….<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s consider that everything a human produces is art (from
porn to commercial MTV videos to Hollywood films to gallery art\u2014it\u2019s all
\u201cart\u201d). The interesting question is not: Is
this art? Or: Is this empowering?
The interesting questions are: How does
it make me feel? Does it challenge me? Can I see how it might challenge others?
How does it contribute to our human development\u2014even if it is regressive or
retro?<\/p>\n
The word \u201cobjectification\u201d is used so often, in so many
various contexts, that the definition has become assumed, or not even
considered. But what are we really talking about? A simplistic understanding of
objectification would imply that it is degrading\/immoral\/improper to think
about someone in a purely sexual way. But is it really wrong? Does it negate
the fact that we can also be aware and respectful of a person\u2019s intelligence,
their gifts? It is \u201cwrong\u201d to get off on a hot picture of a person\u2014of anyone\u2014in
a magazine?<\/p>\n
A more complex understanding of objectification views it as
a structure where women are constructed as objects (as opposed to subjects) of
patriarchy. But I rarely see writers make the distinction or unpack what they
mean when they talk about \u201cobjectification.\u201d The term has been used so broadly
(or so poorly defined), and, in the process, so vilified, that as a society we
have incurred the idea that it is wrong to view someone \u201csexually\u201d at all. We\u2019ve
set up a dichotomy between viewing someone sexually and viewing them as a whole
person, when in fact it\u2019s perfectly reasonable to expect that in one moment we
can think of someone in a purely sexual way and in the next, or, at the same
time, in the back of our minds, also be aware of their \u201cwholeness.\u201d<\/p>\n
I\u2019m beginning to think that some writers\u2019 concept of \u201cobjectification\u201d
has become entirely subjective. It\u2019s as though authors who use the word and
consider objectification versus empowerment are really just talking about
themselves and their own comfort, their own idea of \u201cobject,\u201d but veiling
these subjective views behind the guise of speaking for the betterment of
\u201cWomen.\u201d This broad use of objectification implies that the thing \u201cobjectified\u201d
lacks \u201cmeaningful\u201d sexuality (for the writer) and fulfills age-old stereotypes
that they, simply, dislike. From what I gather this means that sexual \u201cobjects\u201d
also have taken on shape: they are biologically female, skinny, with big tits
and bouncy asses. Gay men? Transgendered persons? Men in drag stripping for a drooling
and cheering queer audience?\u2014\u201cObjectification\u201d no longer applies.<\/p>\n
Is this really fair?<\/p>\n
There is something obviously simplistic and problematic
about this type of thinking. Yet time and time again, I\u2019m finding feminist
writers\u2014who by nature of their topic I want to support but sometimes disagree
with\u2014who resort to the same tired clich\u00e9s about objectification without further
investigation. Thus the unfortunate tendency to reference the same pop cultural
\u201cblemishes\u201d, e.g. Girls Gone Wild, Playboy, Suicide Girls, and Pussycat Dolls.
While I don\u2019t discount their writing or necessarily disagree with their overall
arguments, I find this use of clich\u00e9 to do a disservice to what should be our
larger goal as feminists\u2014that is, to make it clear that feminism IS inclusive,
diversely defined, and bridges divides between women (and men).<\/p>\n
Moreover, we\u2019re making it difficult for those who don\u2019t want
to apologize for the things they like (i.e. Pussy Cat Dolls) to call themselves
feminists. The divide is becoming ever greater, even though feminism could be,
and is, an inclusive movement.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, there are many other things that could be
critiqued in pop culture that affect our ideas of binary gender, sexual
orientation and other forms of structural violence that don\u2019t overtly have
anything to do with sex. If you turn on the television or open the newspaper, you
are likely to find a series of ways in which the media reinforces a structure
of violence that paints not only women as objects (in the structural way)\u2014but
also people of color, immigrants, \u201cThird World peoples,\u201d poor people, disabled
people, queer and transgendered persons, the list goes on. Why focus
unnecessarily long on Girls Gone Wild\u2014insinuating that somehow this show is so
much worse than any other\u2014or that everyone in the world has a television. The
insinuation merely reinforces the idea that because women have consented to
their appearance on the show, or perhaps because they are so \u201cbrazen\u201d about
their sexuality that this is an especially terrible show\u2014as compared to
anything else offensive, racist, or sexist one might see on TV. Please, give me
a break.<\/p>\n
Even women who DO consider themselves feminists sometimes
fall for \u201cbad feminist\u201d shows and products they see in pop culture, which puts
them in the bind of having to shamefully \u201cconfess\u201d that they are indeed \u201cbad
feminists.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI have another confession,\u201d writes Javancia N. Harris, \u201cI
like the Pussycat Dolls. I mean, I\u2019m not president of their fan club or
anything, but some of their songs are on my iPod because they really get me
pumped when I\u2019m cleaning my condo or working up a sweat in the gym \u2026 I\u2019m pretty
familiar with the lyrics of the PCDs\u2019 hit song, \u201cDon\u2019t Cha.\u201d In fact, it used
to be my cell phones\u2019 ring tone for my ex-boyfriend. (Yes, I\u2019m ashamed.)\u201d<\/p>\n
Well I have two things to say. One, most of the people in
this world don\u2019t own iPods, condos, or gym memberships. Second, we are complex,
hypocritical, walking balls of contradiction. That\u2019s partly related to the fact
that we all have our own processes, we all have different levels of what feels
empowering and good. We all make our own steps. American society is not very conducive
to subtlety and nuance; we\u2019re always being asked to take sides, or thrown in
one category or the other. It\u2019s hard for most people to see how a situation can
be both GOOD and BAD, PLEASURABLE and ICKY, and even if we see it, we\u2019re
pressured into assuming a side to \u201csave face\u201d.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t know whether
the Pussy Cat Dolls are or are not being \u201cobjectified,\u201d or do or do not feel
\u201cempowered\u201d whatever that means to each of those women, anyway. I don\u2019t know if
I can say posing in Playboy is just
\u201cold fashioned objectification.\u201d And I don\u2019t really care. The potential power
in any action lies two-fold: one, in the individual\u2019s personal process towards
finding their own power and working to challenge themselves day to day (a
process that takes a lifetime). Secondly, power lies in how others view them.
If there is anyone out there who finds power, enlightenment, sanctuary and
inspiration in the words and bodies of the Pussycat Dolls, then essentially
they have contributed something positive. <\/p>\n
I would argue that whether or not the Pussycat Dolls are being
\u201cobjectified\u201d is irrelevant. One person thinks she\u2019s hot, another doesn\u2019t, and one
dumb ass is stupid enough to think that because this one woman looks like such-and-such this means that all women should look like her (I pity
the fool, but enough about him). What do the Pussycat Dolls think\u2014about
themselves, their sexuality, their self-worth? Who are they? Is it possible
that some young girls look at them and see them as positive role models and
somehow make a difference in how women learn to assert themselves in their
daily navigation of patriarchal culture? Probably. <\/p>\n
These are the more important questions when we look at
anything we see, whether it has to do with women or any other marginalized
group of people. These questions don\u2019t
arrive from one person\u2019s point of view about what \u201cIS\u201d empowering; this is far
too subjective. Rather, artistically\u2014how does this art make me feel? Do \u201cI\u201d
like listening to it? Not particularly, but some people do? How\u2019s the
production? Okay; not bad. Does it get people to dance, does it motivate
people, does it get us up and moving? Fine.
Intellectually \u2013 the truth is, this group may very well have contributed
to a larger and more interesting overall movement in the way that society sees
and understands what women \u201ccan\u201d do. Albeit, it might not be the most radical change.
But if you think about a mainstream audience, perhaps some lyrics are radical
for some women.<\/p>\n
We each have to decide what drives us and makes us feel
passionate. If selling \u201cme, as a product\u201d really feels good to a particular
woman, so be it (even Harris had to admit that some \u201cso-called video vixens\u201d
have been empowered in the rap industry and cites video model Melyssa Ford,
author of Calendar Girl, as one of
them). The fact is, Melyssa Ford, as a self-described \u201cfull-figured Black
woman\u201d probably is contributing to a dialogue about various images of female
sexuality and femininity, albeit not necessarily the same one I contribute to,
or you do, but isn\u2019t that what makes life rich? Sure, you\u2019d rather write books
and you\u2019d rather work in a rape crisis center and I\u2019d rather be a performance
artist\u2014or vice-versa. But who can really say who contributes \u201cmore\u201d to an
overall change in the way that \u201cSociety\u201d perceives women.<\/p>\n
And all that said, who can predict was a sudden regression
will happen? Do the women of the late teens and twenties in Bohemian Greenwich
Village and Harlem who dressed provocatively, mingled freely across racial and
gender lines, drank illegally, created surrealistic and abstract art, sang the
blues and were generally \u201cill-mannered\u201d ever expect the thirties, forties and
fifties? When that puritanical return came, forcing them back into more tightly
managed gender roles, was it the fault of an overly sexualized society and
products equivalent to the Pussycat Dolls or Girls Gone Wild? No … quite the
opposite. And perhaps this is why the idea of \u201cRaunch Culture\u201d just doesn\u2019t
have me worried about the state of women.<\/p>\n
In her essay, \u201cQueering Black Female Sexuality,\u201d Kimberly
Springer writes,<\/p>\n
\u201cFans and detractors these days uncritically call women who perform in
music videos \u201choes,\u201d \u201cho\u2019s\u201d or \u201choez.\u201d No matter how it\u2019s spelled, the intent
is still the same: to malign black women who use their bodies in sexual ways \u2026
They wear very little clothing (it might be generous to call a thong
\u201cclothing\u201d). The camera shots are either from above, (for the best view of
silicone breasts) or zoomed in (for a close-up on butts). And the butts! They
jiggle! They quake! The make the beat go boom, papi! As Karrine Steffans tells
us in Confessions of a Video Vixen, these black women are pliable and willing
to serve as props in music videos.\u201d ….<\/p>\n
She goes on to write,<\/p>\n
\u201cThis combination Jezebel\/Sapphire is hot and always ready for sex \u2026
but she just might rip your dick off in the process. Is this empowerment?\u201d….<\/p>\n
Why are modern, intelligent women giving any credence
whatsoever to what women wear? If women don\u2019t believe that what we wear should
affect whether we get raped or not, we shouldn\u2019t be critiquing women who pose or
appear nude, either. (Nor, for that matter, women who wear \u201ctoo much\u201d clothing,
i.e. women that veil themselves). <\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been naked onstage, \u201csexy,\u201d \u201cugly,\u201d dirty, clean,
punky, femme, and fully clothed \u2026 and everything in-between. What I\u2019ve
discovered is that every audience, and every person in the audience, has a
different reaction. Each person\u2019s boundaries are different (relative to each
other) and relative to different times in their lives. \u201cShock\u201d or feelings of
\u201cwrongness\u201d or \u201cimmorality\u201d are learned, unlearned, and really has nothing to
do with anything about what IS and IS NOT empowering, feminist, moral, or
immoral. An individual\u2019s reaction has nothing to do with how the dancer onstage
feels. It has to do with what we\u2019re used to and what we\u2019re open to. What is
shocking has no empirical value. It has no \u201cThingness,\u201d (a great term I\u2019m
borrowing from writer Hanne Blank from her essay, \u201cThe Process Oriented Virgin\u201d).<\/p>\n
It\u2014empowerment\u2014or disempowerment\u2014is not delivered by God.
Showing a boob is completely contextual. An African woman is interviewed on BBC
and her bare breast swings freely. She is not \u201csexualized\u201d (we \u201cknow\u201d that
because BBC didn\u2019t censor her breast) but that\u2019s not her prerogative\u2014that\u2019s how
we view her. A butoh dancer bears her breast\u2014eroticism may or may not be her
purpose, but her intention has no bearing on how the audience views her. A stripper
bares her breast. She wants to be sexualized because that is her job and it
makes her money. But still, this has no bearing on how she is viewed by her
audience.<\/p>\n
From my vantage point, it feels ultimately no different to
be onstage with clothes or without. My feelings of embarrassment or modesty
have to do with what I\u2019ve been trained to feel and subsequently
learned\/unlearned … not whether I actually
\u201cinnately\u201d feel myself to be an object (which I don\u2019t). Despite what we may
have read in the Bible, as a woman I feel no \u201cinnate\u201d embarrassment about
nudity. This is a socialized and learned understanding of ourselves (it\u2019s
called shame), and again, it has no \u201cThingness\u201d. Thinking or believing oneself
to be an \u201cobject\u201d if one shows one\u2019s body is not an innate feeling, it is a
learned one. In fact, I never feel as though I am an object, if for no other
reason than: I AM NOT ONE. I am a complex interesting human being with a brain
encased in a body.<\/p>\n
Javanci Harris writes, \u201cPlenty of women saw they feel a
sense of power when men long for them sexually. But is this real power? And
just because an individual woman enjoys something like posing nude doesn\u2019t mean
that it\u2019s a feminist act that\u2019s empowering for women as a gender.\u201d<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a misunderstanding here. Not all empowerment is
derived from the idea that \u201cmy body is so beguiling that I\u2019m able to seduce men.\u201d
Speaking personally, my empowerment has to do with the fact that I\u2019m finally
discovering that all this talk I\u2019ve heard my whole life about what I do with my
body is a whole bunch of crap!<\/p>\n
If I feel like being in the rawness of my naked body, so be
it. If I feel like having a shaved head, so be it; and if I feel like licking
my asshole and stuffing mud in my mouth at the same time, great! There is
nothing that I can\u2019t do with my body so long as I am doing it passionately and (hopefully)
creating some good art out of it: something that is interesting, something that
projects a new idea of sexuality, and more importantly, since it\u2019s virtually
impossible to do anything that\u2019s never been done before, something that simply pushes
ME from where I WAS yesterday. That\u2019s all I can really expect. Something that
pushes ourselves as artists or social workers or writers or whatever it is that
we are; whatever role we are playing. Isn\u2019t the point to be challenging to ourselves?<\/p>\n
Ironically, the dialog that all this Raunch Culture hype is spinning
has become just as bad art as the art produced by the Pussycat Dolls. There are so many more interesting icons out
there for young people to emulate (but some of them will learn that and some of
them won\u2019t). But it\u2019s okay! We can influence and share with the young people we
know. We can present alternative histories to them, alternative examples of
style, of beauty. We can be ourselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It didn\u2019t start with her, but Ariel Levy certainly didpackage it: the \u201cI\u2019m not my mother\u2019santi-porn feminist but I still think what you do is WRONG!\u201d feminist who apparently still can\u2019t stop watching the Pussycat Dolls, GirlsGone Wild, and reading Playboy (I guess all in the name of research). And\u2014Ireally feel bad for her\u2014she still […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.alfabus.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}