I highly recommend reading Nina Power’s One Dimensional Woman; it’s a smart criticism of the modern “girl-power-esque” feminism that is rampant today. Power challenges contemporary feminism which is equated with modern depictions of womanhood in media as well as aesthetic consumer feminism. Here are some of my favorite quotes from the book and my analysis of her criticisms:
“Getting women and ethnic minorities into positions of power isn’t going to improve the lives of women and ethnic minorities in general, and certainly hasn’t so far.”
Power evaluates that feminism has completed its mission at the most superficial level of contemporary feminism. Women exist in positions of power, legally women are equal and can’t be discriminated against in the context of most first-world countries. However, this contemporary feminism lacks any real depth and connection with what feminism actually is and does not take into account intersectional struggles nor institutionalized legal discrimination. Feminism is historically a radical movement, and girl-boss feminism is complacent and content with women merely having pussy power merch.
“ [Sarah] Palin is painted as a success story for women, simply because she is one… …mother/politician, attractive/successful, and passive/go-getting… she is the fulfillment of the 1980s imperative that women could (and should) ‘have it all’ – the babies, the job, the success, the sex”
It’s an assumption that what women want/need is to just see women in positions of power. Following this logic, Sarah Palin would be a contemporary feminist’s wet dream. Sarah Palin can be a staunchly conservative republican and still call herself a proud feminist under these conditions. She is anti-abortion and fights against sexual education measures, but still says she fights for female empowerment because she thinks women can be “just as tough as men.” This is the most superficial kind of descriptive representation that is common in modern feminism: it lacks any of the fight for women’s rights to their own autonomy. This kind of woman in power is a token, not a radical shift.
“Nevertheless, images of a certain kind of successful woman proliferate – the city worker in heels, the flexible agency employee, the hard-working hedonist who can afford to spend her income on vibrators and wine – and would have us believe that – yes – capitalism is a girl’s best friend.”
In reality, women are motivated to work but still are actively discriminated against for being women. It becomes a competition of being able to do exactly what a man could do. Then, women can only be career women or mothers. A career woman considering motherhood is less likely to be hired. So, being a girl-boss career woman is amazing, if that’s all you plan to be. Capitalistic feminism doesn’t allow for women to be complex people. This same corporate business woman feminism looks down on stay-at-home mothers. Feminism should never pit women against each other, but that is the foundation of capitalism: competition with winners and losers.
“Feminism™ is the perfect accompaniment to femme-capital™: Politics, such as it is, belongs to the well-balances individual (the happy shopper), sassiness is like, so where it’s at (consumer confidence) and, most of all, one must never, ever, admit to the cracks in the façade (ideology).”
Feminism is commodified today as a means for a woman to have it all, but still remain feminine. These kinds of feminists often poke fun at “grim-faced non-shaving” feminists as an old, unattractive version of feminism to promote their own pretty version instead. This quite literally is objectifying women by their looks and pitting them against each other once again. This type of feminism will have you believe that spending money on yourself, and loving your body is all that feminism should be now. The outrage and passion that is supposed to lay beneath feminism is instead pushed aside for the aesthetic of girl power.
“Capitalism, which in a sense knows no morals (or at least can change them easily), couldn’t care less about the positive, happy ‘feminist’ reclaiming of sex so long as it makes a buck out of skimpy nightwear and thongs.”
Empowering female sexuality is a complicated, slippery slope. While historically female sexuality was largely ignored or demonized, this complete 180° is dangerous too. Women sexualize other women and themselves as a way to try and reclaim their own sexuality, but instead, it’s become a caricature of women who are highly sexual and very “male gaze-y.” These women would argue they’re being feminists by reclaiming their sexuality, however it’s at the expense of all women being sexualized—the same way men sexualize them. This attempts to create a narrative that women are sexual beings, not objects, but ultimately fails in doing so. Modern capitalistic society loves this because it can continue to profit off of women’s sexuality.
“Feminism simply is one’s purchasing power.“
The consumer feminist claims feminism is all about women enjoying themselves; they should splurge and spend on themselves. In this setting, loving your body means buying expensive lingerie. Enjoying your sexuality and masturbating should lead you to buying sex toys. Being an “empowered” woman just means you have enough money for a semblance of control. Equating autonomy and happiness with having the wealth to buy non-essentials completely ignores the lower class.
“… pornography is either degarding therefore a bad or it is enjoyable and thus morally good. But pornography is, we must first of all acknowledge, a massive industry with major economic and social import.”
Pornography has always split feminists. It has been categorized as either degrading or emancipatory for women. However, the bottom line is that pornography is an industry. Pornography is quite literally a business profiting off of women’s bodies. Most people don’t acknowledge or ever discuss the vast history of pornography. Some forms of erotic imagery have always existed and it’s only within a recent wedge of time in which porn has morphed into the brutalization of women. The problem is that outright condemning pornography doesn’t leave room for the possibility of change towards a more equal model. But can pornography ever be equal?
Vintage porn was often comical and included a lot of silliness involving both parties; sex appeared to be exciting for both the man and woman. Just ask yourself, how often do you see women smile or laugh in porn today? Porn is not about mutual gratification anymore, but is an attempt to check off as many categories possible. In film and TV, the term money shot historically referred to the most expensive shot to film, and has evolved into meaning the climactic moment. It’s called “the cum shot” in porn and it serves as the climactic moment. Let’s examine the money shot being the second the man ejaculates. At this moment, if this is the peak, that means the entire sex act was purely for the benefit of the man. The cum-shot has been so integral to porn that it has its own categories depending on where the man’s semen lands on the woman i.e. back, mouth, eye… so the cum-shot both ignores female pleasure and objectifies her as something to be cummed on.
“For all its glee and excitement, the self congratulatory feminism that celebrates individual identity above all else is a one dimensional feminism.”
Contemporary consumer feminism today is an egotistical manifestation of capitalism attempting to hide behind the label of feminism. This kind of contemporary feminism praises greed and selfishness. It divides women by telling them that every woman has to fight for herself, instead of encouraging women to work together for a singular cause. Pornography, television, and film use women as another shallow commodity, turning women into commercial goods. For feminism to return to its roots, it’s important to separate capitalist society from feminism. Beware of pink text and merchandise, beware of girl-boss businesses, and beware of anyone using feminism to make a profit.