Feminism Vs Sl*twalk

It’s been a while. Hi.

I imagine you are already aware of the current phenomenon known as Slutwalk, but if not, allow me to give you a little summary.

In January this year, a Toronto police officer advised a group of students that to evade rape, they should “avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.” The students in question were so enraged, that they staged a protest, taking to the city’s streets in ‘slutty’ outfits. What then followed was a wave of ‘Slutwalks’ across North America, Australia, and most recently, the UK.  Performed not only in solidarity with the original cause, but also in protest against the usage of the term ‘slut’, and the pervading mentality that shames and blames rape victims.

This story caught my attention from the outset for a variety of reasons: the excitement of seeing women self-organise out of anger and frustration, the seemingly organic manner in which Slutwalk caught the imagination of women across different nationalities, and, of course, the implicit possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, feminism hadn’t become a totally irrelevant political stance – that women could still pool their creative energies and react with palpable ferocity against oppression. Perhaps for me, my own yearning for second wave sisterhood danced before my eyes. But as I read more blog posts and articles, saw more photos, watched more videos, I started to wonder, what is Slutwalk actually challenging?

Chicago Sluts

This thought crystallised in my mind while reading an article by The Daily Mail, which initially supported Slut Walk. To the right of the articles headline, which read “Yes means yes and no means no! Scantily-clad protestors join in ‘Slut Walk’ to end rape victim blaming”, are the Daily Mail’s other ‘Femail’ articles, and the one that caught my eye detailed how a particular exotic fruit had the same shape and level of ripeness as Pippa Middleton’s bum (including, of course, a photo of said bum, as Pippa leant over). The juxtaposition of the two, seemingly incompatible, articles astonished me at first, before I realised how, ultimately, they reflected each other. The reason Slutwalk has received so much wide spread coverage is that it enables the media to apparently support women’s struggle against rape in a manner that belies any other wider cultural context or sense of responsibility. Much like the commonsensical notion that rapists are abominations to society, aberrations as opposed to fathers, brothers, workers and leaders, Slutwalk manages to keep its rebellion well within the confines of capitalist ideology.

To my mind, Slutwalk seems to adhere to a major philosophical point, one that also informed Third Wave Feminism, namely that feminism is primarily about choice: the choice to wear heels and lipstick, the choice to be the primary bread winner, the choice to stay home and raise children. Under this approach, all female choices become by their nature feminist, with the only necessary premise being that they are chosen by a woman. And so, Slutwalk cries out, ‘We CHOOSE to dress as sluts! The choice is ours and we are empowered by it!’

UK Sluts

Of course, the major flaw of this perspective is that you are choosing between options that have been preordained for you, choices between limited and limiting social identities. The manner in which ‘sluttiness’ is performed within these walks is a sad echo of how we are taught to exhibit our sexuality. Confined between virgin or whore, we seize upon ‘whore’ because it is a marginally broader role to occupy than Madonna. But that doesn’t prevent it from being an expression of our own constraints. Of course we should be able to dress how we want without the fear of sexual abuse, but why should we settle for the binary position of slut when it is fundamentally just another female archetype; moreover, one that is used within a patriarchal society? I understand that reclaiming words can be an empowering experience within marginalised communities. However, Slutwalk goes beyond the reclaiming of a word, becoming, as it does, the embracement of an age-old masculine projection of what it is to be a sexual woman.

Titillating, playful, a bit ‘girl power’-esque, Slutwalk is a true product of feminism’s desire to go mainstream.

Not that there is essentially anything wrong with trying to extract feminism from its own ghettoization. Feminism should – no, must – be aware of its own subcultural nature, its tendency towards ‘more feminist than thou’ attitudes, and its history of a white, middle class focus. The problems come when, in reaction to our failings, we climb into bed with the powers that directly contribute to our own oppression.

The media can be used and manipulated successfully to express ideas and actions that run contrary to its own interests. But it’s a dangerous game. By simplifying its message to one of ‘slutty and proud’, to gain media attention, Slut Walk has ultimately done itself a disservice. The original, impressive act of women reacting against a powerful sexist attitude has become lost. At the best, articles supported the idea that women should not be blamed for their own rape, regardless of their attire. At the worst, it became an excuse to show angry girls in hot pants using a provocative word: the act of ogling female flesh done under the guise of documentation, and in some cases, reason enough to wheel out ‘political correctness gone mad!’ or ‘Those pesky feminists!’.  Press reaction has been huge, criticism and support coming from a variety of sources. But the unifying message behind all responses being of course rape is bad ladies. Irregardless of whether the press piece sees Slutwalk as demonstrative of the demise of womanhood, or a reassertion of feminist politics, it has been a spring board for media outlets to present themselves to women as representing their interests. Stimultaneously, the isolated nature of Slutwalks political scope, has allowed them to continue to perpetuate images and attitudes that contribute to a culture that fosters horrifying levels of sexual abuse against women. It doesn’t offer any sort of critique of a society that teaches men to be aggressors, penetrators, conquerors, nor does it combat the images of dead-eyed, sticky-mouthed women that are supposed to represent the female experiences of desire. We are left with empty readings of rape, and ultimately irrelevant ponderings surrounding the semantics of ‘slut’.

Sao Paulo Sluts.

Yet the Slutwalk train speeds on, with new protests springing up all the time, the latest across South America and India. For all its faults, Slutwalk has caught the imagination of women on a global scale, and it has shown that we will fight for our voices to be heard.  These calls for freedom from violence are real, and they are here. Whether Slutwalk indicates the shaky firsts steps of an emerging movement built from these voices, or a one-off parade of sensationalism, is yet to be seen.

`

Posted in Culture, Feminism, Social Theory | Tagged , , , , , , | 8 Comments

TV-B-Gone

Check out this jacket recently seen at the CES fashion show. Stylish, warm.

 

Let’s just try zipping it up here…

OH POW!

All television sets in range have now mysteriously been turned off. What a super power!

Especially pertinent after all the bollocks TV I witnessed over the Christmas period. (Mad Men, Doctor Who and Misfits are all excluded from said judgement.) As seen on Flickr Continue reading

Posted in Fashion, Technology | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

2010 in review

The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

Healthy blog!

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads Wow.

Crunchy numbers

Featured image

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 8,200 times in 2010. That’s about 20 full 747s.

 

In 2010, there were 11 new posts, not bad for the first year! There were 36 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 22mb. That’s about 3 pictures per month.

The busiest day of the year was August 2nd with 3,008 views. The most popular post that day was What Happens If We Leave?.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were wordpress.com, facebook.com, 1x.com, twitter.com, and WordPress Dashboard.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for what happens if we leave afghanistan, anna clover, time what happens if we leave, what happens if we leave, and disfigured afghan girl.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

1

What Happens If We Leave? August 2010
170 comments and 34 Likes on WordPress.com

2

Graffiti Project May 2010

3

Graffiti-me May 2010
4 comments and 3 Likes on WordPress.com

4

Whovian Hall July 2010
1 comment

5

In defence of the hipster – cos being a dickheads hard. November 2010
3 comments

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“But tell me! What are the 39 Steps??”

Portrait posed for Jon Cartwright – you should check out his stuff ‘cos it’s got pictures of me in it. And also, he’s pretty good.

Posted in Photography | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

In defence of the hipster – cos being a d*ckheads hard.

Discussing the finer points of the culture known as ‘hipster’ has as of late, become as fashionable as extraditing yourself from it. A slew of articles have emerged recently with the intention of unraveling the loaded term. Along with more serious article such as The Guardians, ‘Why do people hate hipsters?‘ and adbusters.com somewhat hysterically titled ‘ Hipsters: The dead end of western civilisation‘  we have  popular humour sites such as ‘Look at this fucking hipster‘ and the highly circulated ‘Being a dickheads cool’ video, which became something of an online sensation this summer. Most of these express a similar sentiment; The hipster movement is a vacuous non-culture, a scene which has taken all the codes which marked former youth movements, and spliced them together to create a mutated monster mouthing the words ‘kill me’ to its creators.  Gleefully these articles proclaim how hipsters have no collective political ideology, and no art movement that expresses its particular ethos. Their political stance is apathy, their art movement is selective consumerism. Hipsters appropriate the symbols of other groups, and re-assemble them to create a nonchalant look that belies the excruciating nature of its own self awareness. People really, really don’t like this. And what’s more, not liking hipsterdom does not make you a square. Unlike proponents against other youth subculture, hating hipsters actually propels you up the cool ladder. Because – and this is where it starts to get complicated- being part of the complex cultural exchange that informs hipsterness, requires the direct denial of being any part of it. It is such a loathed term, that even those who wear its mass of ever transforming symbols will insist that they themselves have nothing to do with it. As the joke goes…

Why is the hipster culture so troubling to people? What is it exactly that marks it out as being so different from any other fleeting youth movement of an era? Essentially, hipsters are young, white, privileged, and disenchanted youth. They occupy urban spaces, ride bicycles and are meshed in a constant hunting pattern for the obscure and the authentic. To be a hipster is to take the Foucaldian idea of self regulation to a whole new level. The hipster must be intune not only to their bodies, but to the never ceasing wash of information that characterises our age. It is this awareness that crystalises to form a knowing look based on an odd form of bricolage. Old and new merge and transmography to create a walking set of symbols that communicate an understanding about semiotics of past style. What makes hipsters approach to bricolage different to say, punks however, is that the objects and styles chosen are done so in a manner that essentially only communicates an intellectual elitism about knowing their original symbology. For the punks,  the wearing of the safety pin was an intended homage made to the everyday nature of its intended use, and its association with the British working class.  Something seemingly mundane and innocuous we taken up, and re-established with a new meaning through its relationship with other objects. When a hipster places an original 1940s fedora hat on top of their newly cut hitler-youth hairstyle, what is being communicated is not political. It is about knowing the right vintage clothes shop, the right kind of pieces to wear at that particular moment in time, and the right way in which to mark themselves out to other hipsters as being of a selective group.

 

All youth movements have had an elitist element to them, a desire for the underground and the not yet discovered. Something which can be seized upon as ‘theirs’, that is rejected by the mainstream mother culture. Hipster culture is also carried by this desire, but has found itself faced with the free exchange of information that typifies modern western culture. The internet has meant that everyone and anyone has easy access to all forms of creative expression, the most obscure bands can be found in a matter of minutes on google, self published zines can be read online by anybody. To know about a particular band from the depths of musical history, or from the outer reaches of the globe, is just not t hard anymore. Bob Dylan built a career from discovering a rare collection of Woody Guthrie records, barely heard of by most people of his generation. It is inconceivable that such a thing could happen now. That sense of a few people all tuning into something at the same time, the essential blood to counter culture, is no longer possible.

Not only do we have the free and mighty internet, we have a consumer culture that has finally caught on to the fact that kids will buy cool. Scenes barely have enough time to emerge,  before ‘cool scouts’ are taking photos of what they’re wearing, and selling them to fashion conglomerates. The organic and natural progression of a youth culture has been stunted by a constant media fascination with what kids are wearing and listening to, and how exactly it can be re-packaged and sold back to us.

A hipster girl in Hackney gets 'cool scouted'

In the face of this, hipsters have created a scrabbling culture, that moves more quickly, and rejects more swiftly past trends than any other youth movement that has come before it. It centres around the need to know ‘obscure’ music, that ‘you probably wont have heard of’ because it recognises that this is something that has been taken away from us, something that was at the cornerstone of all other counter cultures, but is now unreachable. In the past, young people would rally together with those few others that had heard they’re much loved but sidelined bands. Jonny Ramone couldn’t help but be friends with DeeDee because he was one of the few other people to like The Stooges. There is an awareness that this how it used to be, and hipsters try to recapture this sense of belonging through music, drawn by the need to find things that haven’t yet been seized upon, sanitized, de-politicised, and made appopriate for mass consumption. Hipsters are left trying to keep one step ahead of a constant barrage of products that have been distilled from counter culture and then re-sold. The mother culture can no longer be resisted in the same way. It has come to realise the lucrative potential for absorbing dissonance and re-selling it. Reification baby. Hipsters are criticised for being consumerist, for being smug and apathetic. But this seems to me only a natural reaction to the suffocating situation young people have found themselves in. We have no real movement, because as soon as anything springs up, it will be plastered across magazines and news articles, picked up by fashion houses, and any political resistance it could potentially have is neutralised. Young people know that any political ideology would quickly be gobbled up and regurgitated out by mainstream culture as merely a trend, and so hipsters have embraced the mentality of style over substance. We simply do not have any space in which to express a political movement, we are too scrutinised, too self aware. When young people have as of late reacted in a political manner, they are treated as though they are bad parodies of a bygone era, as if they are only poor imitations of the ‘real’ young people of the 60′s and 70′s. Is it any wonder that hipsters fetishize objects of the past? The hipster movement is, as all youth cultures are, a direct reflection back upon the nature of our culture as a whole. The 60′s beats were a product of a changing understanding of the world,  a desire for change and belief in the new. The 70′s punks reflected back across middle england the dissastisfaction of a country being squeezed by Neo-Liberalism. The 90′s grunge scene saw young people reclaiming music from the bloated corporate music industry in a renaissance of the punk spirit. And hipsters.. Hipsters show us the ultimate result of a world saturated with information. Of a world that hinges around globalised knowledge, and high speed consumption. Hipsters give insight into the core experiences that inform our modern age, of consumerist culture and deadening of resistant politics. Ultimately, it seems to be that most people find it far easier to mock and belittle the actions of young people trying to forge a collective sense identity, than it is to look with a critical eye upon the culture they are reacting too. The Hipster movement does not exist in a vacuum, and if it is to be problematised, so too should be the consumerist nature of our capitalist society.

Posted in Culture, Music, Social Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Gay and Straight

This article is interesting. Surprisingly. Always good to see some research about sexuality not informed by a projected fear of the unknown. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Narlywhal

It’s not a weapon. It’s not a means in which to attract a mate. It’s a sensory probe. I always suspected the Narwhal had tusk related super powers.

Awesome.

Posted in Geekery, Sea life | 2 Comments

Internet dating, meet Lacan.

There’s this dating website. A dating website that seems to have taken hold on near about every second person I know. It has been more than a couple of occasions now, where a friend has told me wide eyed and excited that they have a date. “A date!” I cry, “How wonderful! How delightfully and charmingly American! Where did you meet?” the reply, invariably, is delivered in sheepish tone, with shuffling feet and possible irony. “It’s this website… Okcupid… Have you heard of it?” To which I can only offer a knowing nod and wry smile because, yes, I do know it. I have more than dallied with it myself.

If you are not familiar with it however, Okcupid is one of the most popular and free dating websites currently available. You take tests, build a profile, and peruse others people pages. The site links you up with people who have answered lifestyle questions in the same way as you, and who have mentioned similar interests. You are granted awards based on your personality in relation to other people, for example, a politics award for being more political than the average user, or a literary award for being more literary. There are various personality based tests that tempt the procrastinator in us all, and flatter the ego. There are lots, and lots, of myspacey photos taken in bedrooms. And there are lots, and lots, of users.

Until a recent encounter, I myself have been floating around on that site for a while now, occasionally chatting to someone, or taking a test when bored. But never really giving it any substantial amount of time or energy. A very good friend of mine however, has been a pathological Okcupid user. In the last few months, he has been in a relationship with more than 3 women, all met online. They start with an unusual intensity. The initial emails quickly become instant messaging, then phone conversations at all hours of the day, and then long Skype calls. The women are generally not close enough geographically to visit without a deal of planning, and so the relationship is mostly played out over the internet. He gets to know their personality through his computer modem, and no face is connected to the voice held close to his ear. Each time he gushes incessantly about how lovely they are, how clever, how pretty, how perfect. Each time, the presence of reality has shredded the seeming perfection that was created online. Yet he has returned again and again to the internet, and to Okcupid, as a means in which to meet people. It seemed baffling to me.

Having recently had my own flutter on the Okcupid gambling machine however, its pull has become somewhat more understandable to me. The website perpetuates a particular form of delusion we all engage in. Namely, that the qualities we list as being desirable in our potential mates are the things we are actually attracted to. I think to an extent, we all have certain things we tell each ourselves we desire. That we are looking for someone with a certain level of education for example, or for someone who has read this book and likes that movie. On a website such as Okcupid, it is possible to pop such qualities into a search engine, and find a plethora of potential mates just waiting to be messaged. It is these verbalisations of desire that Okcupid works with, for of course, it cannot process the raw qualia of human attraction. For this reason I think Okcupid and its contemporaries are fundamentally flawed. As a species, it seems that human beings are actually not very good at knowing what it is they want. The users of Okcupid may fill out its many questionnaires and tests with a particular notion of themselves and the person they are looking for. But the realities of that user can never really be translated, their desires never truly transferred. The intangible and unplaceable qualities that draw us to people are not the ones we are necessarily aware of. The smell of someone for example, is a hugely important element when it comes to attraction, and one that largely works on a subconscious level. So while we may believe we were initially drawn to our partner because they had a good haircut and liked Doctor Who (using myself as a model here) other more covert factors, such as smell, are acutely important. There is also that ‘j’ne se quois’, which can lead you to fancying someone who is not conventionally attractive at all, and could in fact be down right ugly. Online, it is easy to dismiss those who do not fit your usual aesthetic type, because there is no way of gaging the potential for chemistry in a virtual environment.

The other main problem I have found with Okcupid relates largely to my friends experiences, and has something of a Lacanian feel. It pertains to Desire vs Reality. Lacan theorised that in the process of desire, melancholy occurred not when desire is frustrated (such as the frustration of one’s ‘l’objet petit a’ existing behind a computer screen) but when desire is forced to interact with reality, and we are faced with the disappointment of the real. The object continues, but the cause of our desire has withdrawn. Over and over again, my friend was caught up in the creation of an ideal lover. The somewhat painful sweetness of their inaccessibility only heightened the experience, as the object of his adoration was always just quite out of reach. Everything circled around the pulsating interplay of desire and reality, as both parties constructed particular versions of their internet loves. Then when the time came to meet, and the interplay was removed from its creating realm of the internet,  reality destroyed the desire and thus the relationship(s). But the intoxicating intensity of an online love always blotted out the consequential melancholy, and so the cycle continued. The headiness of a frustrated love can be hard to beat.

Lacan poses for his Okcupid profile picture

So I have been left with more than mixed feelings when it comes to the world of internet dating. I understand that it allows people to communicate with others in a way which can be less intimidating, and seemingly more straightforward. You want an earnest brunette who listens to Tunng and works in media? Just type those key words in and find a choice of dream girl/boys with varying match levels and geographical locations. No stumbling over to someone who looks vaguely interested/interesting in a noisy bar, no straining your alcohol addled mind for an opening line, and no awkward experiences of rejection. If someone doesn’t like you, they’ll just not message back, and there’s no face lost because it was only an email to begin with. It’s when we move beyond initial contact that problems seem to crop up. There is the fact that, as I mentioned,  attraction is a slippery character to pin down and can draw you to someone who on paper would seem entirely unsuitable. Vice versa, a person can possess all the physical and mental attributes you think you like, and yet have elicit no desire whatsoever. Yet in the online universe, there is no way in which to know this. Attraction is not an easy thing to identify without the living breathing, creature of your desire in front of you, because essentially, we are animals. We need more than text on a screen and disembodied voices on a phone to successfully work out if we like someone. We need smell, we need body language, we need the presence of facial expressions. It is what we are biologically tuned into, and without it, reality is a ticking time bomb.

Posted in Culture, Internet, Psychology | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Down Down Deep

Carnivorous flowers, walking fish, adorably tiny octopodes… The recent deep sea exploration in the waters off Indonesia has revealed up to 40 new species of animal and plant life. Including this little critter who sports tiny flabby sea legs with which he can explore the oceon floor. With a constant grump face.

It is reassuring to know we are still discovering life on our planet that is removed enough from human beings to be able to happily continue its peculiar deep sea business. For now, at least.

Posted in Geekery, Photography, Sea life | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“Because being a feminist is all about choice”

This is what a feminist looks like?


It recently came to my attention that the US republican politician Sarah Palin has identified herself as being feminist. In a May anti-abortion speech she compared herself to being a ‘Grizzly Momma bear’ rising up to protect its young, and spoke directly to her ‘sisters’ in the audience. She also used that phrase I have heard so much over the last few years. The one about choice. Palin’s argument seems to be that feminism is not incompatible with her political views and practices. That it is a term that does not directly correspond with a particular political stance, and can be used by conservative women as well as liberal, because being a feminist is essentially about being a woman and making choices. In theory, this seems like an appealing idea. Feminism being induced by women of varying political backgrounds, all ultimately rallying for the rights of female kind. To analyse this idea more deeply however, several niggling questions arise that I wonder how Palin would respond to. Can feminism really be described as a politically neutral force? Have we reached the point in feminist practice where the term ‘feminism’ can be used as a blanket term for any actions taken by a woman, regardless as to her political and social beliefs? Is being a woman, and making choices, enough reason to call oneself a feminist? I think to truly face these questions, we need a quick reminding as to what’s being going in feminism for the last 40 odd years. Then, maybe, we can gain some insight as to how we’ve reached this point, and what it means for the future of feminism.

Let’s start with the second wave.

In the 70s, second wave feminism was beginning to have a direct effect upon policies and cultural consciousness, and women across the western world became aware more than ever before of the restrictions placed upon them. Second wave feminism was also characterized a belief in patriarchy, which links all women beneath its oppressive power. The spirit of unity is important in understanding the second wave, as a priority for the movement was the creation of groups and networks that could practically aid women in different ways. In 1972, the first refuge for battered women was established, and other such enterprises were soon undertaken.Second wave feminism took on much of the politics held by contemporary Socialist and Marxist activists and turned their attention to subjects that had until then been neglected by academia and political activism, such as the home. For this reason, much of second wave politicizing is influenced by socialist and Marxist conceptions of capitalism and consumerist society with the belief that a unified approach is required to tackle the inequalities of power it creates. It was also criticised however, for being a point in which women felt they had to conform to a strictly formed ideals to be accepted as being truly feminist. Manifestos had to be observed, clothes and sexual partners were scrutinized. These criticisms helped form what is now termed as being third wave, or post feminism. The intention was to breathe life back into feminism, by allowing it to become more accessible. The third wave understanding of feminism is crucially individualistic in nature. It does not base itself upon the meeting of women as a political force, but as individual units that tackle inequalities separately. This is a reflection not only of the distaste towards the tendency of second wave feminism to homogenize the experiences of women, but a reflection of the neo-liberal flavour of 90s politics.

With the increased presence of neo-liberalism across the world stage, came the individualistic, capitalistic, post-feminist agenda of third wave feminism. This capitalistic form of feminism embraced the Western culture of consumerism through the visibility of the media. Feminists such as Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards believed that feminism needed to be re-invigorated, through making it accessible within mainstream mediums such as television, advertising and film. Placing feminism within the media was the best way to remove feminism from the peripheral position of subculture. Identity politics taught that if the portrayal of certain marginalised groups (in this case, women) within society changed within the media, then this would lead to the subsequent change of society as a whole. In theory, this all sounds great. Things changed when the ideals of third wave feminism ran into the realities of the capitalism. Because, at the same time, mainstream corporate culture became aware of the need to approach female consumers in a new ‘modern’ manner, and the individualistic values of third wave feminism tuned in nicely with the consumerist ideology of freedom through freedom of choice (between products). Advertisers managed to reduce the complexities of feminist politics into a style, which was manageable, saleable, and supportive of consumerist culture. Groups like the Spice Girls promoted the idea that YES you can be sexy, feminine, and working in the mainstream media, whilst embracing the idea of female power (or girl power). Through the paradigm of ‘choice’ It became possible to be a stay at home mother, and also call yourself feminist. You could run around town with your three 30 something buddies in ridiculously expensive Manolo Blahniks and call yourself feminist. A word that was initially used to tackle the inadequacies percieved in the second wave, came to embody a completely empty understanding of feminism. In the desire to allow all women to feel empowered, not just a select feminist elite, feminism has managed to derail itself. Now, any action taken by a woman, from pole dancing to cavorting around Hugh Hefner’s mansion as a playboy bunny, can be called emancipation. We have seen everything become muddled under the term ‘choice’.

And this is where we return to Palin. When the term choice is thrown around to excuse and explain all manner of actions and beliefs, it’s little wonder that someone such as Palin is able to adopt the term for her own agenda. If it can be used to explain a tit job, surely then it can also be used to explain the use of fire arms. Ultimately, where’s the line being drawn? It seems to me that feminism’s eagerness to embrace mainstream culture has destroyed it’s political barb. The nature of our consumerist culture, is that anything can become a commodity, used and manipulated for purposes beyond its original conception. In this case, feminism is being induced as a way in which the Republican party can tap into female voters. Which is quite understandable, as feminism’s seemingly sensible desire to become mainstream, has come round to bite it in the ass. Anyone who calls themselves a feminist needs to start to question what that word now means in our current place in history. The didactic mentality of the second wave managed to alienate a generation of young women, who set out to reform the ways in which feminism is viewed. To try to make it less stuffy, more fun, and sexy. But we have now moved to another extreme, where permissiveness is the order of the day, and ‘feminism’ is such a loose term that near about anyone, or any political party can adopt it. Choice is an important element to feminist thought, and to attempt understanding of different ways of being female is crucial. But we need to reinvigorate all the other things feminism has been, and can be, or I fear we are going to lose it to those such as Palin.

Posted in Culture, Feminism, Social Theory | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments