Class Exercise: Aaron, Danielle, Jon, Lance, Peter

1)         McRobbie constructs postfeminism as term that indicates (1) feminism’s successful completion and (2) a newly structured utopia wherein the ascertaining of personal empowerment is wholly achievable. McRobbie charts this development across eras: first, how notions of personal success intrinsic to second-wave feminists intrinsically identified an “end-point” for feminist goals; second, to embodiments of that perceived success conjuring images of feminism’s completion; third, to the disavowal/rejection of feminism resulting from its completion; fourth, the ideological formation of postfeminism, which relies on neoliberal ideals of actualization via self-management, consumerism, and self-starterism. McRobbie’s project, and her engagement with the term “postfeminism,” is to unpack and define the ideologies that fill the gap left by feminism’s disavowed by postfeminism.

Banet-Weisner engages the term "postfeminism" to cite the definition from McRobbie's article specifically, which she largely agrees with and tries to expand. Similarly to McRobbie, Banet-Weisner argues postfeminism is the "'undoing of feminism'...by appearing to participate in an inclusion of feminist ideologies" (204). She invokes McRobbie's definition to apply it intersectionally to race and ethnicity, drawing a comparison between the popular misnomers of "postfeminist" and "postracial" society. She argues definitions of both of these terms "are framed around generational differences" (204), but that in contemporary society they are tied by neoliberal commodification of both feminism and ethnicity. Her overarching question: if race and feminism are represented as commodities "in precisely the mainstream [they] were meant to challenge, can we still talk about [them] as political?" (208).  

Butler historiographically situates views of postfeminism as either a linear continuation of earlier feminist moments (beginning with prefeminism, then feminism and now postfeminism), a rejection of feminism (most specifically the essentialist ideology of second-wave feminism), or a sex-positive ideology. She then explains how each of these ideas is a misreading of feminism, either due to pure misunderstanding and mischaracterization, or incomplete historicization. She posits that postfeminism includes

            “one or more of the following characteristics: that it

1.     implies that gender equality has been achieved and feminist activism is thus no longer necessary;

2.     defines femininity as a bodily property and revives notions of natural sexual difference;

3.     marks a shift from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification;

4.     encourages self-surveillance, self-discipline, and a makeover paradigm;

5.     emphasizes individualism, choice, and empowerment as the primary routes to women’s independence and freedom; and

6.     promotes consumerism and the commodification of difference” (44).

In this definition Butler seems to take a broader approach that earlier conceptions of postfeminism avoided, possibly for the purposes of either rejecting/marginalizing the concept or to be more specific in a sea of unmoored discourse. This allows for a more respectful tone about the squishiness of the frequently non-verbal discourse and its chaotic omnipresence. It seems Butler is quite interested in post-feminist media, be it outwardly ironic or frustratingly un-self-aware, and her definition allows her to pull specific useful elements from such texts.

2) McRobbie:

“It was, in a sense, taking feminism into account by showing it to be a thing of the past, by provocatively “enacting sexism” while at the same time playing with those debates in film theory about women as the object of the gaze.”

This is the fundamental conception of post-feminism as a cultural discourse according to McRobbie. Post-feminism demonstrates a sort of ambivalence by citing feminism as a referent (indeed as one that may have been necessary for women to gain prominence in society), yet dismisses it as a concern of the past, one which is passe and, for lack of a better term, uncool for a modern, self-assured woman.

“There is a quietude and complicity in the manners of generationally specific notions of cool and more precisely and uncritical relation to dominant commercially produced sexual representations which actively invoke hostility to assumed feminist positions form the past in order to endorse a new regime of sexual meanings based on female consent, equality, participation, and pleasure, free of politics.”

Here McRobbie brings in notions of “coolness”. Post-feminism, in its discourse with the gains of feminism, relegates feminism to the past and thus relegates it as uncool. Post-feminist media (in this case, a provocative billboard) is in a discourse with assumed feminist positions, if only to antagonistically mock the perceived constraining nature of feminism and create a distinction between sexism and a detached, ironic “sexism” that allows the advertisers to engage with explicitly sexist iconography while shielding themselves from criticism with ironic distance.

“With the burden of self-management so apparent, Bridget fantasies tradition.”

Self-management is one of the fundamental principles of post-feminist neoliberalism according to McRobbie. Chronic dissatisfaction, too, is a theme that crops up frequently in these post-feminist texts. In the case of Bridget Jones, the burden of post-feminism is such that she transports herself to an idealized vision that feminism dictates (according to the post-feminist discourse) is verboten and outdated, without the burden of self-management and self-reliance. And yet, this scene itself is highlighting feminism’s passe nature, leaving a generation of women socially empowered, but perpetually dissatisfied (according to the post-feminist media).

Banet-Weiser:

“Postfeminism, understood in this manner, is thus a different political dynamic than third wave feminism, which is positioned more overtly as a, kind of feminist politics, one that extends the historical trajectory of first and second-wave feminism to better accommodate contemporary political culture and the logic of consumer citizens. Postfeminism, on the other hand, is as McRobbie puts it, "feminism taken into account," a process in which feminist values and ideologies are acknowledged only to be found dated and passe and thus negated.” (206)

In this aspect, Banet-Wieser clearly establishes the difference between third-wave feminism and postfeminism. Both reject the work of first and second-wave feminism, but using McRobbie, she notes that postfeminism simply dismisses the work as “old.” The values of feminism are simply seen as part of the generational transition that is losing its power. The postfeminist value is not as much entirely rejecting those elements but taking them as simply part of a sphere of cultural values without resonance.

“Words such as identity and multiculturalism, in the 1980s, code words for race; in the early-twenty-first century, these same terms are code words (especially for the consumer market) for "hip," "urban," and "cool." Race, like gender, as a political identity has been appropriated (at least in part) in the dominant culture through the brand identity of the urban and postfeminism. Within this context, I do not want to romanticize a definition of politics as something stable and immediately meaningful-or, conversely, to vilify brand identity as exclusively superficial and ephemeral — but I do want to shift the cultural frame through which youth empowerment is understood.” (215)

Here, Banet-Wieser sets up the relationship between post-feminism and post-racial, in which the crucial political salience of the discourses are neutralized in a capitalist appropriation. In part, she uses the historical mode of the 1980s related to race to imply a similar change in discourse in how postfeminism co-opted feminist politics in the 1990s. Banet-Weiser makes a careful distinction, however, not to entirely attack this position but show how this is part of a generational shift related to brand identity becoming the dominant mode of a younger generation in dominant culture.

“Yet in programs such as Dora the Explorer, which confront stereotypes as they simultaneously reformulate them for a shifted market, the stereotype that is reconstituted is one that is not necessarily intended for an ethnic niche market but is meant to appeal to a broader (more "global") audience. Using this strategy, Nickelodeon can claim that the network is committed to diversity despite the fact that this progressive ideology works as a more general market imperative. This strategy works hand in hand with postfeminist politics, where Dora, as a strong, smart, female character, is clearly a product of a culture that recognizes the importance of "positive" gender representations yet does not call attention to any kind of feminist politics other than the politics of representation. Thus, the challenges to dominant stereotypes that Dora the Explorer poses are framed within normative social conventions so that the challenge is contained and made palatable for a media audience.” (222)

Banet-Weiser’s summary of Nickelodeon’s strategies related to feminism and racial politics in Dora the Explorer demonstrates her argument of how elements of the discourse become culturally appropriated elements that have become political neutral. She notes how Dora both acknowledges both feminism and cultural representation as essential to its success, but notes how these are simply “stances” the show uses as part of its brand, a way to become palatable for larger audiences that works in producing the post-feminist and post-racial discourses—they elements are not denied by simply made as a set of options a show can take without any political resonance.

Butler:

“While neoliberalism is neither universal nor homogeneous in outcome (see Dubal 2010; Ong 2006), the shift to neoliberal forms of governance in the West nonetheless provides fertile ground for the development of discourses that emphasize consumer citizenship, personal responsibility, and individual empowerment. It is within this complex social, cultural, economic, and political environment that postfeminism emerges as a contemporary gender ideology. Propped up by the (imagined) success of the women’s movement, a sex-positive (and racially exclusive) feminist legacy, and the ever-expanding neoliberal celebrations of autonomy, individualism, and consumer choice, postfeminism surfaces as a more attractive alternative to previous forms of gender politics.” (41)

One of the key elements of Butler’s reading of postfeminism is framing and defining exactly what is meant by neoliberalism. Neoliberalism as its developed as a dominant discourse has emphasized the individualized element of the consumer. Thus, when understanding postfeminism not as a direct response to second-wave feminism and only in conversation with the history of feminism, but as an alternative made out of part of the fact that neoliberal discourses as a new mode of discourse.

“Postfeminism, as I understand it, is not (just) a resentful retaliation against earlier generations of feminists, nor is it (just) an empty celebration of feminine consumption. It is not that young women have suddenly retreated into a space of “traditional” feminine domesticity, nor is it true that they have somehow accepted gender inequality and women’s objectification as inevitable. The “post” of postfeminism does not signify feminism’s death. Rather, postfeminism becomes a kind of substitute for or displacement of feminism as a radical political movement…Rather than defining postfeminism as simply linear, backlash, or sex-positive or as a quasi-politicized subjectivity akin to third-wave feminism, a more productive impulse is to analyze it as a complex, broad, and increasingly hegemonic ethos, sensibility, or discursive formation.” (44-45)

One of the key parts of this quote is for Butler to establish postfeminism a discursive formation as opposed to simply its classification as simply anti-feminist. Instead of viewing postfeminism as a natural backlash against feminist ideals, she simply sees it as a growing alternative discourse that displaces its political valiance. While third-wave feminism clearly engages with second-wave feminist ideals, postfeminism is simply a larger cultural discourse that thus allows it to seep into larger consumer discourses that feminism could not with larger, less concrete ideals than complex set of discussions that incorporate a range of women’s issues that are not just inherently in conversation with second-wave feminism.

“Clearly, the versatility of postfeminism functions as a double-edged sword with regard to women of color: on the one hand, it allows nonwhite women to participate in its deployment and enjoy its rewards, albeit in narrowly circumscribed ways; on the other, it works to conceal the underlying power relations that reproduce hegemonic ideas about race, gender, sexuality, and class. And, just as it does for white women, postfeminism requires its nonwhite participants to reject political activism in favor of capitalist consumption and cultural visibility.” (50)

One of the key parts of Butler’s reading of postfeminist is to not assign it as entirely lacking intersectionality. However, what she notes that because of its function within the neoliberal sphere, the choices allow for women of color but only within a certain sect of spheres that ignore the various hegemonic power relations that postfeminism fails to recognize. Thus, women of color are not entirely excluded, but they must conform to postfeminism’s white ideals in order to enjoy its very narrow rewards.

 

3) In this scene, we see Meredith and Christina discussing male impositions of monogamy, complaining that the men in their lives are behaving like “1950s debutantes”. Both of these characters are engaging with Butler’s notions of post-feminism (following Gill), specifically her third and fifth points that it  “marks a shift from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification” and “emphasizes individualism, choice, and empowerment as the primary routes to women’s independence and freedom”. The women discuss their discontent with the expectations of monogamy placed upon them by the men in their lives. This scene, in another era, would be a place where their mutual choice for sexual independence would be judged in negatively. Instead, within the context of the show, this is seen as an empowering discourse, one in which the women find self-actualization and agency through their own sexuality and their own independence. The scene is superficially apolitical, yet suggests deeper political on reappraisal.

Post: Postfeminism

GROUP NAMES: Darshana Sreedhar , Julia Van Valkenburg, Raymond Talovera, Anna Ogunkunle,  Christian Harris, Zeke Saber 

Summary Notes of Articles

Postfeminism is trying to use ambivalence and irony

Bringing together neoconservative ideas under the garb of neoliberalism

Lack of political commitment doesn’t give you a sense of community or shared ideas

It’s all fragmented and there’s no set of values--very individualistic

Common sense

Subjectivity and experience in the sense of postfeminism

Is there an “us” at the end of the day or is it always about you

Privilege and access to certain commodities based on status

Structure where you don’t have to think about it because of privilege

Who claims the label of feminist? 

-Is it given to you or do you choose to be associated and labeled to it based on choice?

Is postfeminism constructing to be inclusive?

Meritocracy is part of postfeminism and they overlap

Individual and free of politics 

Jess Butler

“As these criteria suggest, postfeminism is, by definition, incredibly ambivalent: it simultaneously rejects feminist activism in favor of feminine consumption and celebrates the success of feminism while declaring its irrelevance.” (44)

• Here, Butler points out the negotiation postfeminists must perform by distancing themselves from the issues that plagued waves of feminism, like exclusivity, as well as celebrating prior waves of feminisms political successes. It also highlights the requirement that post feminists buy into neoliberal values of individualism and consumption.

“Yet, while third-wave feminism actively engages with feminist history, if only to deem it inadequate, postfeminism displaces or replaces feminism altogether.” (42)

• In this quote, Butler is further juxtaposing the differences between third-wave feminism and post-feminism to further accentuate her overall point that postfeminism’s main goal is to disassociate itself from feminism.  She is highlighting the two kinds of contemporary feminists where although they both see past movements as somewhat antiquated, at least one side of the spectrum is willing to continue with a political discourse.

“Propped up by the (imagines) success of the women’s movement, a sex-positive (and racially exclusive) feminist legacy, and the ever-expanding neoliberal celebrations of autonomy, individualism, and consumer choice, postfeminism surfaces as a more attractive alternative to previous forms of gender politics.” (41)

• Here, Butler points out the depoliticization of postfeminism thanks to feminism’s “completion of its goals” in addition to postfeminism’s cooptation of neoliberal values.

Sarah Benet Weiser

“Given the contemporary representation context, what are the consequences when race or gender becomes cultural--a “competency” or mode of consumption witching the world of media entertainment.” (205)

• This question acts as the thrust of Banet-Weiser’s article, in that it’s concerned with how the economic models of postracial television also inform the production of postfeminism. When race “or” (she says “or,” but might use “and” later in her article) gender are subsumed into a mode of consumption, what results is a sensibility through which reframed and commodified versions of feminist ideas/values are normalized. 

“In other words, the normalization of feminism has prevented it from existing as a discrete politics; rather it emerges as a kind of slogan or generalized “brand”. (208)

• Benet-Weiser references the mainstreaming of feminism (pointing specifically to liberal feminism) as having the effect of depoliticizing the movement. Instead, and presumably as a result of the individualism and consumerism perpetuated by neorealism, feminism’s existence in popular culture becomes that of a label or brand. The quote contributes to Benet-Weiser’s position that postfeminism and current conceptions of feminism benefit consumerism in media culture.

“...McRobbie calls a “double failure,” for, “In its over-emphasis on agency and the apparent capacity to choose in a more individualized society, it has no way of showing how subject formation occurs by means of notions of choice and assumed gender equality coming together to actually ensure adherence to be new unfolding norms of femininity.” (208)

• Sarah Benet-Weiser refers to McRobbie’s idea of “double failure” in arguing how postfeminism uses individualized identities to chisel agential possibilities to engage with self care. But there is a certain negation in this mode of subject formation as it creates isolated individuals who can choose from a set of seemingly empowering choices only to be deluded into a double entanglement where political commitments are traded off for fragmented sensibilities of empowerment.

Angela McRobbie

“To count as a girl today appears to require this kind of ritualistic denunciation, which in turn suggests that one strategy in the deem powering of feminism includes it being historicised and generation aliased and thus easily rendered out of date.” (258) 

• The idea of feminism in the past has usually been in a negative and radical perspective by the media. Feminism is seen as this idea of denouncing many parts of being a woman and part of a political stance.Therefore, many girls and women of modern society don’t want to be aligned with the notion of feminism or being called a feminist because of its history. It tends to leave a negative impression of people and makes people seem radical and obscure.

“Although there is some shared ground between authors, insofar as they all reflect on the expectation that individuals now avidly self-monitor and that there appeared to be greater capacity on the part of individuals to plan “a life of one’s own,” there are also divergences.” (260)

• McRobbie here is putting postfeminism in the larger context of neoliberal ideas.  She shows how both concepts overlap in the way that it puts emphasis on individuals bettering themselves.  The main crux of postfeminism focuses on choosing ideas of feminism that empowers oneself, and also through commodities, females can empower themselves if they so choose to be, creating this dialogue of meritocracy.  This female individualization is what Mcrobbie sees as the reason politics is erased from the conversation of postfeminist, mainly because we see it now as a self-managing problem and not a holistic issue.  

“There is quietude and complicity in the manner of generationally specific notions of cool, and more precisely an uncritical relation to dominant commercially produced sexual representations which actively invoke hostility to assumed feminist positions from the past in order to endorse a new regime of sexual meanings based on female consent, equality, participation and pleasure, free of politics.” (260)

• McRobbie is pointing out that contemporary women face a different socio-political environment than their parents - one where it seems that all rights have been achieved and feminism is outdated. Feminism is no longer cool. Feminism brings to mind notions of incivility and anger. With these stigmas postfeminists do not critically engage as a group with the issues still plaguing women and instead subscribe to notions of achievements of individual rights.

Clip

The Real Housewives of Atlanta Season 3 Intro

Angela McRobbie in her article talks about the female individuality. The women in the promo are self marketing and all about individual planning “a life of one’s own”. They each begin their short bio by using the pronoun “I” to reassert the individualistic thought of women in postfeminism. It’s also interesting that none of the women on the show are actually housewives and mainly business women that are in some way educated and part of the upper-middle/upper class. Butler extends the idea of postfeminism across race and how it can attribute to black women by referencing The Real Housewives of Atlanta. She says, “the women of color featured in the above representations clearly embody and enact postfeminism: they embrace feminist and the consumption of feminine goods; they espouse a vocabulary of independence, choice, empowerment, and sexual freedom, and they construct themselves (or are constructed by other) as heterosexual subjects” (48). The women on the show heavily embrace the consumption of goods and their individuality through their ability to consume products, whether it’s food or material objects. Many of their meetings are usually at a restaurant or a clothing stores which emphasizes their commercial mediation of their interactions.

Clip

Slam Your Body Down and Wind it All Around: Postfeminism and Dominant Representations of the Female Form

Amalia Charles, Anne Kelly, Lille Formigli, Emma Ben Ayoun, Katherine Robinson

Question 1:

In this week’s readings, each theorist presents a different definition of post-feminism in terms of historical moment, process, and discourse. McRobbie discusses postfeminism as the contemporary moment in time which positions feminism as a completed project with an endpoint. In this context, postfeminism isolates feminism as a past referent, thus objectifying and demonizing it in order to ultimately render it “safe” for current neoliberal postfeminism. Postfeminism is itself trapped in a “double entanglement” - the coexistence of neoconservative values about gender/sexuality/family, and the liberalization of choice and diversity. For McRobbie, postfeminism is a current phenomenon wrapped in concepts of historicity.

By contrast, Banet-Weiser defines postfeminism as a process, rather than a historic moment. To Banet-Weiser, postfeminism transforms and dilutes the ideals of feminism for consumer culture. This seeming inclusion of feminist ideologies – together with racial commodification – actually undoes feminism. As typified by “global citizen” Dora the Explorer, postfeminist, post-racial culture de-politicizes the original goals of feminism and diversity by setting them as ambiguous commodities to be consumed.

Butler rejects both Banet-Weiser and McRobbie’s definitions for being too homogenous in their concepts of postfeminism. Butler states that postfeminism is not one dominant ideology or process, but rather a range of cultural discourses. These discourses have in common a disavowal of politics, attempting to de-politicize and de-historicize feminism. Crucially, Butler sets a contrast between apolitical postfeminism and political (neoliberal) third wave feminism.

Question 2:

Angela McRobbie:

“Broadly I am arguing that for feminism to be ‘taken into account’ it has to be understood

as having already passed away.” (255)

This quote highlights the ways in which feminism has continuously evolved throughout

its history to encompass other ideas, and to understand those shifts to acknowledge the

death of particular types of feminism is important.

“The concept of subjectivity and the means by which cultural forms and interpellations

(or dominant social processes) call women into being, produce them as subjects whilst

ostensibly merely describing them as such, inevitably means that it is a problematically ‘she’ rather than an unproblematically ‘we’ which is indicative of a turn to what we might describe as the emerging politics of post-feminist inquiry.” (256)

This quote discusses the ways in which the female subject is not the author of her own narrative, often reduced to two-dimensional and reductive stereotypes purported by dominant ideology and representations. By reducing women to subject, it removes a larger narrative and discussion of an identity that is not monolithic.

“To count as a girl today appears to require this kind of ritualistic denunciation, which in

turn suggests that one strategy in the disempowering of feminism includes it being

historicised and generationalised and thus easily rendered out of date.” (258)

This quote is talking about the idea of there being a correct type of feminism that all  women must ascribe to in order to be counted as being truly a part of the movement.

This statement highlights the ways in which the feminist community can sometimes be

dividing instead of inclusive, and that perhaps the movement needs to embrace the

different forms of femininity across the spectrum instead of delineating once again what

is and isn’t correct ways to enact empowered womanhood.

Sarah Banet-Weiser:

“Within this particular battlefield, the struggles of the past to represent women and people of color are read through a nostalgic lens as an "old school" kind of politics.”

This quote demonstrates Banet-Weiser’s view of post-feminism and post-racialism as processes which continually undo efforts to accurately and politically represent women and people of color.

“This commercially defined articulation of identity needs to be distinguished from other means of self-construction within the social and political world, but the distinction itself is one that is in flux and continually negotiated. That is, when a media audience is "empowered" by images of race and gender, there is no linear connection to empowering communities. Rather, the connection is based on a notion of agency that is consumer driven and thus has consequences primarily in terms of consumption habits and even specific purchases made.”

Banet-Weiser articulates postfeminism as a process which separates empowerment and identity. Postfeminism commodifies symbols of empowerment, reassociating them with consumer values rather than actual empowerment.

“The current moment is thus characterized by ambivalence rather than specificity, where an ambivalent identity category such as urban or girl power becomes dominant and is the entry point to a commercially defined "postfeminist" or "postracial" society.”

This quote illustrates Banet-Weiser’s view of a postfeminist and postracial society as one which strips individual and specific identity from symbols of empowerment, instead continually creating a culture of ostensibly empowered individuals who are in fact totally ambivalent to their identities beyond their consumption.

Jess Butler:

Butler's sharpest point of divergence from the other two articles is her description of the third wave. She writes: "Ultimately, the third wave is meant to provide women with a comfortable, inclusive—and, I argue, fundamentally neoliberal—space where they can cultivate individual feminist identities without all the strident negativity of “old-school” feminist activism (42)" For Butler, postfeminism and third-wave feminism are both cultural forces within the framework of a neoliberal economy, and the third wave, with its emphasis on plurality and inclusivity, nevertheless situates political empowerment within the imperative towards personal, capital gain.

Following from this, she argues, "Not simply a rejection of prudish, militant mothers, postfeminism also draws on a vocabulary of individual choice and empowerment, offering these to young women as substitutes for more radical feminist political activity" (43). Rather than a 'backlash,' referred to by McRobbie, Butler reads postfeminism as an act of erasure, not just distancing itself from the past that engendered it but undermining and actively drawing over that past. The specific emphasis on the 'positive' is also important for Butler, in that it essentially negates the need for "radical feminist political activity" through its refusal to engage with sites of pain, injustice and failure.

In this pithy quote, Butler outlines the postfeminist as person: "Postfeminists may be lawyers, doctors, and heads of state; they may also be strippers, shoppers, and sorority girls. In short, it appears that the only thing postfeminism requires is that women “be who they want to be”—just as long as it is not a feminist." (44) As we will demonstrate with the clip below, a multiplicity of futures, of possible individual options (all within the dictated confines of a capitalist consumer culture) is predicated upon the eradication of the 'we,' of the collective movement towards political change.

CLIP:

The Spice Girls occupy the typically ambivalent, postfeminist position between 'she' and 'we', embodying so-called individual (archetypal) identities within the space of a collective girlhood. The imperative to 'harmony,' literal and figurative, in a postfeminist, Spice World landscape, constrains and shapes the development of an 'empowered' girl, wherein the disruptive or destructive forces of previous feminisms are foregone in favor of glorifying pre-existing notions of femininity that have existed across pop-culture narratives forever. While it give us a glimpse at potential ideation of feminist inklings, it unfortunately, because it is wrapped within a capitalistic structure, is unable to divorce itself from the power structures it finds itself playing into.The Spice Girls' "flava" is necessarily incorporated, made bland, rendered inert.

The Spice Girls as a group are meant to sell the commodity “Girl Power” Banet-Weiser identifies as a fundamental message of post-feminism. However, their individual archetypes – meant to sell a concept of empowerment through portraying the diverse ways to be female – actually undermines their Girl Power message. Each represents a hypersexualized, de-indivualized concept of femininity: the crazy black girl, the sexy posh girl, the sexy baby girl, the (straight) sexy butch girl, and the redheaded slut. From their song lyrics to their personas, both individually and as a group, the Spice Girls sexualize and commodify the message of feminism, thereby (as Banet-Weiser points out) undoing feminism’s goal.

Class exercise on postfeminism

Working in your groups, answer the following questions, and post your group's response to the blog.  (Be sure to list who is in your group in your post.)

1.     Summarize each article’s delineation and use of the term “post-feminism.”  Why does each author engage the term? 

2.     Pull three representative quotes from each article.  Briefly explicate them.  How does each quote contribute to the author’s overall argument?

3.     Find at least one clip (or other popular culture artifact like a website or print ad) that speaks to the concerns of one or more of the authors.  Offer at least a 200-word analysis of the clip that references at least one of the articles.

TV+Postfeminism Core Post 3

Postfeminism is "a cultural response to feminism", a response of "collective ambivalence” for being "both feminist and anti-feminist”(Butler 44-45). In line with neoliberalism, postfeminism emphasizes on individual empowerment through individual regulation and transformation. On one hand it offers positive and powerful messages to women; on the other, it “inscrib(es) increasingly narrow definitions of femininity around body consciousness and age” (Whelehan 2010). Postfeminism offers ideal femininity image to guide female regulation and transformation. In the postfeminist discourse, women are constructed as "subjects and consumers”, who employ the mechanism of consumption to tackle issues of aging, motherhood, body, intimate relationship, etc. (Butler 45) Sex and the City showcases how white middle-class urban women deal with these issues. The protagonists are independent, professional women who are successful at work but consistently anxiously deal with these postfeminist problems (especially intimate relationship) through self-improvement. Women can work as successfully as men, but unequal gender norms are still in play here, as men is at the center of women's problems and not the other way around. As Anthea Taylor points out, "a viable postfeminist subjectivity for women is presumed to be contingent on the search for, and attainment, of a man — a desire thoroughly normalized.”(105) Women renew themselves through makeover while men remain "the static romance hero” (Whelehan 2010). 

In Sex and the City, Carrie talks about how unfriendly the society is for single people and that she decides to marry to herself. It seems that singleness is often perceived as a temporary stage, especially for women. Woman singleness is still interpreted as a loss; because their independence is gained at the expense of a husband or a family. Woman singleness is either to be overcome in a relationship, or to be reassured by therapy/comfort. One crucial desire in this postfeminist discourse, is to regulate or transform themselves in order to (re)enter the “compulsory heterosexual” relationship or family system again (Butler 39). Another crucial desire is consumption, to fulfill desires for fashion, beauty and youth. Carrie’s fetish on shoes is a normalized female desire, a great example of empowerment through consumption. But we should notice that the construction of women as “subjects and consumers” in postfeminism doesn't prevent women from being objects of consumption. Sexual freedom inevitably comes with sexual objectification/consumption on female body.  

References:

Imelda Whelehan, Remaking feminism: or why is postfeminism so boring? Nordic Journal of English Studies. 9.3 (Sept. 2010): p155.

Anthea Taylor, Single Women in Popular Culture: The Limits of Postfeminism, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2012.  

Core Post #3: Feminism Beyond The Brand

One of the strange issues I think at stake this week is the relationship between social issues and capitalist markets. If we return to the original Gitlin-Newcomb/Hirsch debate, it was between a networked system of markets that will inevitably reproduce dominant ideological strains and pockets of resistance that open up avenues of discussion. But now as Butler writes, postfeminism only “requires [] that women ‘be who they want to be’—just as long as it is not a feminist” (44), arguing for it as essentially a neoliberal attitude. Most importantly, it “constructs women as both subjects and consumers, elevating consumption as an individualistic mechanism of empowerment and effectively commodifying feminist activism” (45). So now we can have shows like 30 Rock, Parks & Rec, Sex and the City, Inside Amy Schumer, or just choose any 10 best shows of the year, which can brand themselves under feminist to be consumed. Which is to say, the subversive ideology does eventually grow, but it gets subsumed into the dominant one.

This brings us back to Gitlin though, because as both Butler and Banet-Weiser argue, postfeminism has been defined by its very lack of political engagement as much as its #brand (and their lack of intersectionality). Newcomb/Hirsch saw the potential of television to be a discussion market that would slowly pervade, but if the ultimate result is once again a capitalist market, is there not an inherent problem with the practices? Or do today’s shows, despite their postfeminist appeal on the surface, then allow for the possibility of the pocket of discussion?

The real question missing from all of this is what would (or could) an alternative market look like. We’ve discussion Beyoncé’s “Formation” during a few sessions, in which an artist despite being at the literal top of a capitalist market, uses her power to promote an intersectional feminism. Of course, getting there requires two decades of work that did not necessarily contradict those issues, but certainly was not actively and openly espousing them. But I think a question more essentially is how does one develop and sustain an alternative market that could challenge dominant markets. Would we call Netflix an alternative market? (Which produced an often-cited intersectional show like Orange is the New Black, though an Adam Sandler film still dominates the market). Is it enough for ideas to simply percolate before becoming a #brand? I’m not really sure on any of these topics and curious to hear what people think.

Core Post 3: TV & Post Feminism.

It is a beautiful coincidence to write about TV & post-feminism on March 8th, the International women’s day. There is no holiday break in the US for Women’s day, but believe it or not, my mom was taking a day off yesterday because it was an official holiday for women in China.  And of course, all the guys have to show up for work. In the context of post-feminism, I should argue that this kind of holiday break is problematic. ( But I won’t… Love holiday~)

In Jess Butler’s article “For White Girls Only? Postfeminism and the Politics of Inclusion” she argued that the post-feminism is not a term that simply steps on the previous feminism movements and goes into a straight pattern. She argued that post-feminism is “a kind of substitute for or displacement of feminism as a radical political movement in which earlier feminist demands for equal rights, collective activism, and the eradication of gender inequality are taken into account and then displaces by the postfeminist ideals of individualism, choice, and empowerment.” (44) In another word, post-feminism should be things people taken granted.

 "Mona Lisa Smile" 

While the third-wave feminism had a primary goal of “reinvigorate feminism by bringing young women back to the movement, and to allow women to define feminism in their terms.” (42) The problem with the earlier feminist movement is that there was an unspoken assumption that feminism was for a white, western, and heterosexual woman.  This reflects on contemporary movies and televisions that featured female powers and feminism. But post-feminism includes nonwhite and non-heterosexual females, and people may not be fully aware.  Writers for "Sex and City" certainly did not realize either, and nor did other writers for the feminist movies during the late 90s and early 2000s. Both Sarah Banet-Weiser and Butler's articles addressed this absence of race in the feminist movement.

Butler ends her article back to Nicki Minaj’s case, commenting how her “being herself” was not accepted as postfeminist discourse because of her race. And people assaulted her when she appropriation of Barbie. It reminds me of the recent Barbie commercial that features the collection of new Barbie dolls of different races, body size and styles.  When the current Barbie fans grow up, hopefully, they will not attack the next Minaj’s appropriation of Barbie.