Sex sells. This two-word phrase might be one of the most cliché phrases of the 21st century, however despite this, this phrase is true. The world has changed, some would argue for the worse. Today’s society is not the society that first-wave feminist activists, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton envisioned. The beginning of the 20th century was the time of the women’s suffrage movement thus; the main concern of the women of the first-wave movement was being given the right to vote. Women are no longer fighting and campaigning for equal rights, but rather, it seems as if women have taken two steps backwards instead of moving forward. Women of the first and second-wave feminist movements sought to increase women’s rights and thus, ultimately empower and liberate women. However, fast-forward 100 years, is today’s modern woman more empowered and liberated than a woman of the 1960s? My answer echoes that of Ariel Levy, author of the novel Female Chauvinist Pigs, and that is no. Through the example of Jessica Simpson’s music video “These Boots are Made for Walking”, one can see how today’s raunch culture has not furthered the women’s movement, but rather has impeded it.
It is safe to say that, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were not campaigning for a world in which women’s liberation meant a sexual revolution. Thus, these feminists were not advocating for a world in which women could casually sleep around or wash cars in pink bikinis. Women like Anthony and Stanton were fighting to expand the voice and power of women. To these pioneers, having a voice that could be heard was liberating. However, third-wave feminists, not only differ from the women of the first-wave but also, from second-wave feminists. In fact, the third-wave is a direct rebellion of the very conservative second-wave movement. As a result of this rebellion, raunch culture evolved. According to Levy (27), prior to raunch culture the thought of being associated with sex, nudity or porn was something that would negatively tarnish a woman’s reputation. However, unlike prior feminist movements, raunch culture furthers those who have been involved in some type of sex scandal For example, one can look at how Paris Hilton became a household name after her sex tape graced the internet (28). “We [today’s society] have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publically sexual, and because the only sign of sexuality we seem to be able to recognize is a direct allusion to red-light entertainment, we have laced the sleazy energy and aesthetic of a topless club or a Penthouse shoot throughout our entire culture” (Levy 2005: 26).
According to Levy, we are living in a society filled with raunch culture. This culture rather than promote women’s liberation, has done nothing more than degrade women. The various outlets of media are filled with women who are deathly skinny, cosmetically enhanced, scantily clad, and just oozing with sex appeal. Raunch culture claims that it is liberating and empowering for women to parade around in barely there outfits. These images of women are what today’s youth has to look up to. It is safe to say that these women do not resemble prominent feminist figures such as Abigail Adams or Susan Brownmiller. Today, young girls are shown images of hyper-sexualized female celebrities (Kobrin 2006:1). The fact is these images are endless. These “highly sexualized images are no big deal” for today’s teen, in fact, this has become the norm (Kobrin 2006:1). Thus, the image of Jessica Simpson strutting in her daisy duke jean shorts, or washing the infamous Duke’s of Hazards car in an itsy-bitsy bikini is not out of the ordinary for today’s raunch culture. The unfortunate issue about raunch culture is that music videos, like Simpson’s are so abundant that they have in fact lost their shock value. Society, especially the youth, are not phased by the lack of clothes and the amount of skin that female celebrities show.
“The truth is that the new conception of raunch culture as a path to liberation rather than oppression is a convenient (and lucrative) fantasy with nothing to back it up” (Levy 2005: 82). Thus, with a music video like Simpson’s, the idea that this in some way exhibits or promotes women’s liberation is simply untrue. Further, there is no one else to blame for this than Simpson herself. While yes, there are music video directors, agents, etc who help create this storyline for the music video, it is ultimately Simpson who objectifies herself. Women are quick to point the finger to men and state that they are objectifying them however; in this case Simpson, or in a broader aspect women themselves, have brought this situation themselves.
Ultimately, I agree with Levy on the issue of how raunch culture is degrading to today’s woman. I believe that raunch culture and the over sexualization of the female body has only further oppressed women. More so than ever before, women are viewed as sexual objects.
However, I do not agree with Levy on a whole. I think that Levy is narrow-minded when it comes to her definition of what constitutes a feminist. Levy is an essentialist; she attributes certain characteristics to members of certain groups, in other words, she stereotypes. While I agree with her that the image that Simpson and other similar female celebrities portray is degrading to women, I do not agree with her that a feminist needs to fulfill the stereotypical feminist look. I believe that a woman can still “go on strike against submission” without adopting a braless, unshaven, untrammeled approach to life (87). In Levy’s eyes, women who have waxed vaginas and wear push-up bras and heels are immediately placed in the same category as Simpson. To her, women cannot be both a feminist and a girlie-girl. Ultimately, Levy is quick to judge and criticize women for embracing the “girlie-girl culture”.
However, why is a woman not considered powerful and strong if she chooses to get a Brazilian bikini wax? In Female Chauvinist Pigs, Levy interviews Erica Long, a sex-positive feminist who sides with Levy on the idea that the way women portray themselves today is demeaning. “I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women…The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power-I’m all for that stuff-but let’s not get so into the tits and ass that we don’t notice how far we haven’t come. Let’s not confuse that with real power” (Levy 2005: 76). My response to this quote by Long, is that one cannot judge a book by its cover. Just because a woman has unshaven legs and goes braless does not necessarily mean that her actions are liberating.
In conclusion, what constitutes being a feminist? The basic definition is a person who advocates political, economic and social equality of the sexes. Thus, with that being said how is Jessica Simpson empowering women by grinding on men wearing an outfit that looks like it has been torn to shreds by a tiger? The answer is, she is not. Both Levy and myself would agree to the fact that Simpson is just one of the many examples of how today’s society is filled with raunch culture. Simpson’s music video “These Boots are Made for Walking” clearly exemplifies today’s hyper-sexualized society. This image that she portrays in this video is something that Susan Brownmiller, a true feminist, sums up for women of raunch culture, “You think you’re being brave, you think you’re being sexy, you think you’re transcending feminism. But that’s bullshit” (Levy 2005: 82). However, while Levy is quick to throw all Hollywood types into raunch culture, I am not. I believe that women’s outer appearance does not dictate whether or not they are a part of raunch culture. Women can wear red lipstick and five-inch heels and still be powerful and liberated. Ultimately, it is a woman’s actions not her physical appearance that dictates whether or not she falls into the category of raunch culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment