Monday, January 25, 2010
What is Feminism?
In "The Future That Never Happened", Levy points out that there are clearly many different types and degrees of feminism, each ranging from completely different worldviews, such as those of Hugh Hefner and Susan Brownmiller, to different attitudes on more specific issues such as pornography and sex. Though I was a bit surprised to hear Hugh Hefner call himself a feminist based on the generally constructed definition of the term, considering that his industry is based on the objectification of women, if we considered feminism to be a rejection of the conventional role of women during the 1960s then perhaps his title has some validity. However, the feminism that Betty Friedan explains in "The Feminine Mystique" is much more than simply getting women out of the kitchen, but rather "a total transfiguration of society - politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics" (Levy, 48). Thus because this second-wave of feminism, which Betty Friedan also advocated in "The Feminine Mystique" looked to change so many aspects of society, it was bound to attract many different opinions and perspectives. But what is feminism ultimately trying to achieve? Levy explains and I believe Friedan would agree that a very important part of the women's liberation movement was women's sexual pleasure which probably explains Hefner's title as a feminist given his attempts to liberate a woman's opportunities to express herself sexually. However, here we begin to see a problem because is it considered liberating and empowering for women to wear very revealing clothing and come off as happy, or is it degrading and simply objectifying women? Going back to our discussion last week about Girls Gone Wild and women who embrace this "raunch culture", I think that while it may be true that women somehow feel empowered by expressing themselves through their bodies, the fact remains the motive behind such an expression is to sexually gratify men, thus there seems to be an absence of gender equality in these expressions whether it's through stripping, pornography, or just drunkenly posing for an Girls Gone Wild cameraman. Yet as Levy explains, feminism, especially during this second-wave, looked to change gender roles in all aspects of society, starting in the bedroom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like Jessi, I found it very surprising that Hugh Hefner considered himself to be a feminist. The double standards that Levy points out are completely spot on: he can live a promiscuous lifestyle with multiple sexual partners, but his "special girls" have to remain 100% faithful to him. Women were not the "major beneficiary of the sexual revolution" (60) -- and feminism is not "antisexual" (60). Rather, feminism is about liberating women sexually so they are complicit and full participants in sexual activities, and not just simply pin-ups in Playboy for men to be sexually aroused by. It's not that the feminists that opposed Hefner were "puritan, prohibitionist" or "unenlightened and uptight"; these feminists understood that in Hefner's sexual revolution, women were the objects to be admired, at no real benefit or pleasure of their own. Similarly, as Jessi points out, it's no wonder that raunch culture has become so big in mainstream America -- the sexual revolution has taught women to feel liberated or empowered by taking their clothes off or doing "sexy" things on camera.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, once again (like in my previous post), I think it really comes down to changing the way we think and reprogramming society's views on sexuality, gender roles, men and women. We've been taught that promiscuity is okay, sex sells and women can be objectified by men -- it's all good. We need to turn those kinds of ideas around and realize that it's not okay to think that way. We need to see the complete irony in Hefner's sexual revolution: he is not trying to empower or liberate women by making them feel comfortable being "sexy"; he is trying to sell magazines to horny men looking to stare at naked women. Liberation? Empowerment? I don't think so.
After reading the section of Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique,” I was not surprised that Levy chose to title her chapter “The Future That Never Happened.” Although Friedan and Levy are writing in completely different times, that issues they were alarmed about remain the same. Friedan’s writing calls for an awakening among women; to realize that “the problem that has no name” is actually a problem that affected a lot of women and to realize that they weren’t alone in their depression. Decades later, Levy is calling for a similar awakening among women. As Jessi already said, many women in the industry are practicing liberalism under the false pretenses that they are liberating themselves and their bodies, but it still is only gratifying for males, which defies one of the main purposes of the sexual revolution that defined early feminism. I think “the future that never happened” relates to the issues we talked about in class last week. When Friedan and early feminists were calling for liberation, I assume they were not envisioning a society were women posed nude and subjected themselves to drunken activities caught on camera. Instead, they wished for a society where women could still be considered influential and feel empowered without having to prove that they are “sexy” in order to be taken seriously. The fact that these are issues proves that we are part of “the future that never happened.”
ReplyDeletejessi, your wall post was very thorough.
ReplyDeleteThe scope of feminism and its variations throughout certain groups of society is something that shows us that each person has their own "Brand" of feminism.
Friedan shows us a transformation needs to occur in order for women to reach the goal of a balanced healthy feminism. When we take a step back we realize ol' Hef's take on feminism is perhaps, as Jessi has said not liberating women but trapping them in this "Raunch Culture". Jessi's quote "I think that while it may be true that women somehow feel empowered by expressing themselves through their bodies, the fact remains the motive behind such an expression is to sexually gratify men, thus there seems to be an absence of gender equality in these expressions whether it's through stripping, pornography, or just drunkenly posing for an Girls Gone Wild cameraman." Sums up my feelings completely on Playboy. Hefner may claim to be liberating women and changing the world through his brand of feminism, but is he really changing it? Or trapping women into forever pleasing man?
I found one of the most fitting quotes to be Brownmiller declaring, "Everyone was fighting for freedom, but when it came to sex, freedom meant different things to different people."Obviously we can gather from the readings that sex is a major part of feminism, but disagreement lies in what sex today is doing to feminism.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteYou've gotten off to a good start with your posts; what I enjoy about this series of responses is that you each expand upon, and more importantly, clarify each other's points and ideas. Especially compelling to me was the parallel you drew between women's situation in Levy's raunch culture and their feelings during Friedan's time. You're right: both sets of women are trapped in similar ways. However, as Levy points out, perhaps the reason raunch culture is now a norm has something to do with second wave feminists. Can you elaborate on this? Why does Levy bring up the '60s/'70s women's liberation movement in order to explain and understand raunch culture? Your main post would benefit from a bit more detail: can you say more about what these various authors are arguing and how they relate to one another?
Generally, though, you're on the right track -- great use of quotes to sum up ideas!