Thanks to Dmitriy T.M. for sending this speech by Joss Whedon (responsible for Buffy the Vampire Slayer) at an Equality Now event. His comments begin at 2:00 (after an introduction by Meryl Streep):
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Teresa C. sent in a link to a benefit in Raleigh, NC, for a women’s center. The benefit was called Walk for Women and included a mile-long walk in high heels (though apparently the high heels are optional):
I get what they’re trying to do. Really, I do: an attention-getting way of raising money for what I’m sure is a worthy cause. And having worked or volunteered in many social-service jobs, I know fundraising can be hard (especially in an economic downturn) and you can end up doing some sort of weird stuff if you think it will bring in donations. (I once helped out at a dog blessing at an animal shelter. People brought in their dogs and had them blessed by an Episcopalian preacher [priest? I’m not sure of the terminology] and received a little medal with the image of some saint who apparently is the patron saint of animals, and who I am too lazy to look up right now, to hang on the dog’s collar. Also, there was wine, which in small-town Kansas was the source of some controversy.)
[NOTE: When I originally wrote this post, I had no idea that blessing animals is something some Episcopalians and Catholics do fairly often. I thought it was just something a sweet but kind of flaky volunteer thought up. I apologize if the comments about the animal blessing ceremony seemed disrespectful–I truly didn’t know that it’s a common religious ceremony. I decided to leave that section in but cross through it rather than delete it entirely, as it seemed dishonest to just erase it and pretend it hadn’t happened. I messed up, and I know it.]
So I know where people are coming from when they organize such things. But it still kind of bugs me that organizing walks in high heels has become a common fundraising technique for organizations that serve (primarily) women–women’s centers, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and so on. And I can’t help but think that walking around in heels is, ultimately, an odd way to help women. At least in this case, participants are apparently raising money. But several times I’ve seen high-heeled walks that are simply to “raise awareness,” with no particular emphasis on donations. The ones I saw all had men wearing high heels. And the thing is, I can’t figure out what on earth the point is. What type of awareness is it raising? Is walking around in high heels supposed to increase a person’s understanding of some of the problems women face? What are bystanders supposed to get out of it?
The Raleigh Walk for Women organizers also had a Beauty Blitz at a local salon, where people could drop in, register for the walk, and get discounts on salon services from a person who was a contestant on “Biggest Loser.” And also have a cocktail. So the event is this strange mixture of helping women by using the trappings of femininity (high heels, beauty care). And I just find it kind of odd.
We’ve offered many examples of companies co-opting feminism in order to sell products. In the video below, we see that the co-optation of feminism is nothing new:
(At Vintage Videosift.)
Actually, I shouldn’t be so flippant. Inventions like the washing machine did, indeed, save women a great deal of time and effort. From what I understand, however, as women’s cleaning became more efficient, standards of cleanliness rose. So even as time-saving devices were introduced, the time women spent cleaning did not substantially change. I’d love to hear more from scholars who have a better handle on this history.
Here’s another step in the trajectory, this one from 1971, also about cleaning appliances (found here):
Text:
The American Appliance Industry has always championed women’s liberation.
There was a time when women washed clothes by hand in water carried from a well…
…shapped every day because there was no way to refigerate food…
..tried to keep house with just a broom…
…made clothes without a sewing machine!
It’s obvious. America’s appliances have freed women from the oppression of endlessly dull, backbreaking work. They’ve helped liberate the American woman to enjoy a more stimulating, more interesting life…
In or out of the home.
Women who seek successful careers in the arts, sciences, business, industry, education, or the professions are finding themselves.
It’s all part of America’s new freedom of preference. And Republican Steel Corporation, a leading supplier of steels to the appliance industry, is proud to be a part of it.
Visit your nearest appliance dealer and you’ll see hundreds of our modern steels — intricately shaped and beautifully finished in the world’s finest consumer appliances.
Like to help liberate the women in your life from some hard work and drudgery?
Buy her one of the new convenience appliances this weekend.
Or maybe a whole houseful.
Notice that women’s liberation DOES NOT involve men sharing housework responsibilities, but men replacing women’s labor with tools he purchases for her. Ultimately, even if she has a “successful career” in “the professions,” it is her responsibility to make sure that the housework is completed (and apparently still wouldn’t be able to buy herself one of these machines).
For contemporary examples, see these posts on make up (here and here), botox, cigarettes (here and here), right-hand diamond rings, cooking and cleaning products, fashion, and other miscellaneous products (here, here, and here).
Elisabeth R. sent us this one-minute commercial. I’ll let you experience it as designed (it has a surprise ending) and include my comments below:
We might feel that feminism and gun ownership are incompatible. An argument could be made that (especially machine) gun ownership is anti-feminist, but it’s also true that we artificially cluster rather random, unconnected ideas into political ideologies that we then understand to be compatible by definition. For example, what does being anti-gay marriage and anti-taxes have to do with each other? Nothing.
For more on pro-gun propaganda, see this extensive set of really fascinating posters making feminist, anti-racist, and pro-gay arguments in favor of gun ownership.
For another example of an effort to bridge the political binary, see this post on pro-environment/anti-immigrant activism
I’ve always found it troubling when I hear people use the word “Nazi” metaphorically. Terms like “fashion nazi,” “food nazi,” even Seinfeld’s famous “soup nazi” episode, seem to trivialize the Holocaust. Of course, we often recognize the hyperbole and that’s part of what is supposed to make it funny. But do we really want to make fun with such an idea? Lots of people didn’t like it when PETA did it.
In any case, I was thinking about similar uses of the word “rape.” The word “rape” seems to be everywhere. People use it not just for its literal meaning, but to describe all manner of unpleasant experiences. For example, in this story at bestweekever:
Do other societies use words like rape and murder metaphorically? Have we always done so? Must we? Or are there alternatives that may be more sensitive to people who lost loved ones in the Holocaust, were raped, or knew someone who was murdered?
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Fascinating:
Bush’s comment is offensive (yes, all pro-choice women are ugly, angry, and undesirable). Clinton’s complicity is unfortunate.
In the comments, Sabriel asks what my “sociological angle” is. Sabriel, I think Bush’s comment and Clinton’s complicity reveals that it’s still essentially fine to be hateful towards women, especially those who refuse to play by the rules of patriarchy (whether that be measured by attention to their attractiveness to men or accepting that their role of mother should take precedence over any and all other needs and desires). Regarding Clinton’s complicity: Imagine the flak he would have taken had he defended the woman that Bush castigates. By and large, at least in politics, it is easier to be sexist than it is to be feminist.
Via Feministe.
Taylor D. sent in a link to a set of vintage ads featuring African Americans. This one is for wigs. Notice the commodification of liberation and freedom: you buy it in the form of a wig, which gives you a whole new look in seconds!
This one is for a hair straightener:
Of course, the “tamer” and “the boss” that can “stir up some beautiful new excitement in your life” can also refer to the man who is stroking her hair, playing into the idea of the man who tames a wild woman–and that all women, deep down, want a strong man to tame them.
This next one uses women’s fear that men won’t find them attractive to sell deoderant:
Thanks, Taylor!
