#consumerism and feminism

[haggishlyhagging]

The history of drawing on feminist language and theory to sell products has been driven by the idea that female consumers are empowered by their personal consumer choices—indeed, that choice, rather than being a means to an end, is the end itself. The idea that it matters less what you choose than that you have the right to choose is the crux of "choice feminism," whose rise coincided with the rapid, near-overwhelming expansion of consumer choice that began in the 1980s. Consumption, always associated with status, became elevated as a measure of liberation and swelled with the self-obsession of the privileged but insecure. Tom Wolfe identified this dynamic in his coinage of the term "Me Decade," and later satirized it in his 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. Historian Christopher Lasch, author of the 1979 bestseller The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, laid the enshrinement of a cycle of consumption and neediness at the doorstep of the advertising and marketing industries, but also excoriated left-wing movements, feminism included, as enablers. (The temperamentally antifeminist Lasch would later target burgeoning marketplace feminism in his posthumously published collection Women and the Common Life, writing that "the feminist movement, far from civilizing corporate capitalism, has been corrupted by it. It has adopted mercantile habits of thought as its own.")

The feminist cultural historian and media critic Susan J. Douglas has noted, for instance, that the success of advertising to women in the 1980s hinged on its effective pairing of status and power with liberation. As neoliberal, greed-is-good, if-I-have-an-umbrella-it-must-not-be-raining rhetoric became the common tongue of the overclass, luxury beauty products, designer labels, and exercise regimens (Buns of Steel, anyone?) became liberatory achievements, rather than mere consumer goods. "For women in the age of Reagan," wrote Douglas, "elitism and narcissism merged in a perfect appeal to forget the political already, and get back to the personal, which you might be able to do something about.” The representations of choice in a time of tacit postfeminism translated neatly into what could be called "empowertising"—an advertising tactic of lightly invoking feminism in acts of exclusively independent consuming.

Take the infamous 1994 billboards for Wonderbra that featured model Eva Herzigova looking down in delight at her suddenly pneumatic breasts swelling out of a scalloped black bra, alongside the words "Hello Boys." The Wonderbra had been sold in the UK since the mid-1960s, but sales rocketed up thanks to the billboards. The ads worked so well in part because they were tongue-in-check (others in the series read "Look me in the eyes and tell me you love me" and "... Or are you just happy to see me?"), but also because they assumed a level of what feminist theorist Angela McRobbie calls "feminism taken into account"—a belief that the movement's success has rendered it irrelevant as something to be considered in shaping culture. You can almost hear the rationale proffered in the Wonderbra billboard concept review: "This would seem sexist if we didn't know better, but we do know better, and because women know we know better, this is, in fact, empowering." If Herzigova, Kate Moss, and the millions of other women who sent Wonderbras flying out of department stores were making the choice to wear this underpinning, and they’re exhibiting sexual agency in doing so, such logic went, what's more feminist than that?

There are no concrete numbers on how many consumers indulged that postmodern reading of the ads, but based on Herzigova's own reflections twenty years later, probably not a ton. Recalling the billboards (which, in 2011, were voted the most iconic ever by Britain's Outdoor Media Centre), she initially told the UK's Mail Online, "My Wonderbra campaign empowered women.... It didn't degrade them like some said." But in the same article, Herzigova complained that when she tried to shift from modeling to acting, Hollywood executives wanted to check out her underthings first: "I met people who said, Yes, we can talk about the movie over dinner. I was, like, What dinner? I can just read the script here." The fact that the supposedly empowering ad did nothing to chip away at the routine sexualization of women—that it might have further galvanized it, even—didn't seem to register.

-Andi Zeisler, We Were Feminists Once

[6-beez]

One facet of female solidarity that needs more discussion is anti consumerism and anti consumption. Our current western mindset is one of obtaining as much as possible, both as a show of wealth and for personal comfort. However, much of what we buy (for example, fast fashion) is produced in a non-transparent supply chain that frequently relies on female and Global South labor to make goods cheap and easily affordable, and thus more tempting for the consumer. These low wages that are paid to workers result in economic desperation and trap women in poorly paid, often abusive positions. Additionally, women and children are the most at risk from the negative effects of climate change, which is exacerbated by industrialization and over production.

By consuming less we reduce support for these predatory supply chains and their deleterious effects on the environment. Ideally if we buy goods, they are from female owned businesses whenever possible. Personally I also avoid spending money on items that enforce the beauty standard (this includes makeup, uncomfortable or impractical clothes or shoes, and cosmetic procedures). Essentially, what ways could you support female solidarity through consumption habits?

[queerpunktomatoes]

Hey, I know talking about revolution and constantly facing the atrocities happening in our world is so so necessary, but it's also really hard, and I see you, and I appreciate you. I love you very much, I acknowledge and respect you as a person, and you're doing great.

[she-is-ovarit]

It's all connected. Corporations began marketing gay pride themed merchandise. An increase in "I-identify-as" populations began to flood gay bars and events, where outward appearance (marketed as "gender expression") became heavily emphasized.

Commercial visibility and marketability does not equal human rights progress.

Ability to consume does not equal citizenship to an oppressed group.

Biology, (referring to sexual orientation and sex) is not a brand you can buy into or boycott out of.

Corporations selling rainbows do not reflect our values.

The churning out of new "all inclusive" pride flags to pledge allegiance to is not indicative of liberation.

A historical homosexual slur being sold by the multi-billion dollar media obfuscates predominantly lesbian relationships ("queer women", "queer relationship") and retraumatizes many gay and lesbian people.

Gay pride only extending to people able to purchase detracts from the meaning of gay pride and distracts from the struggles of the most vulnerable. It positions the most privileged within marginalized and oppressed groups as those who represent the whole.

And associating body modification, aestheticism, and "expression" with self identity turns the lived experiences and material realities of entire subgroups of people into niche market categories that people who aren't even a part of these groups can identify into and out of based on social trends.

Biology becomes devalued, overshadowed by the social and manufactured "genders". Infinite genders means infinite target audiences. Lived, material realities of certain groups of people become materialism.

Human rights movements are becoming human rights industries, with the wealthy more directly capitalizing off of the exploitation of the poor, of the homosexual, of the female, of the immigrant, of the dark skinned, of the mentally ill, of the disabled, of the sick, of the marginalized and oppressed.

Don't buy into it.

[sunbeamedskies]

I love Taylor Swift, but you all have got to stop falling for the media pitting women against each other.

Billie was most likely not shading Taylor- she was talking about how she personally does not want to do a 3 hour show, and she believes her fans don’t want her to do one either. She also emphasized releasing multiple versions of physical albums that aren’t eco friendly is a systemic industry issue.

I’m a huge Taylor fan, but not every comment another artist makes is specifically about Taylor.

The amount of people here who see anything that could vaguely be criticism of Taylor as a personal attack is not healthy. If you are prone to jumping to conclusions, you need to take a step back from the internet and chill. The media LOVES framing quotes from someone like Billie as being 100% about someone like Taylor because it gets them clicks.

Taylor is also not flawless. She is one of MANY musicians who release multiple versions of albums as part of cash grabs. She doesn’t need to do it- she’s the hugest musician on Earth- but there’s such a pressure to do so that she does. There’s nothing wrong with wanting her and all the other musicians who do it to do better

[barbiebutgayer]

🚨FUCK THE SUPER BOWL AND TAYLOR SWIFT!!! THE CITY OF RAFAH AND THE REST OF THE GAZA STRIP ARE UNDER ATTACK!!! MARTYRED CHILDREN DANGLING WITH THEIR LIMBS TORN, TENTS BEING BOMBED, AND THE SMELL OF DEATH EVERYWHERE!!!🚨#freepalestine and start holding ourselves and our governments accountable!!

[fem-lit]

A woman who thought she was sick with femaleness couldn’t buy an ultimate cure for her gender. But a woman who thinks she is sick with female ugliness is now being persuaded that she can.

— Naomi Wolf (1990) The Beauty Myth

[italianpawg]

it's kind of wild how a woman cannot become famous for anything anymore unless she's conventionally attractive regardless of how talented she is in her field

[grrrlwiththemostcake]

Having too much makeup or skincare products is not normal, I'm sorry but 😭

[disillusionedmonster]

Know what I have been thinking about? I do not think it is a coincidence that empowerment has shifted into a "feeling", as opposed to something a group or someone has, at the same time as the rise in consumerism. Like you can feel powerful or good, but that does not equal empowerment. I think about this a lot because many things that women and gendies say make them feel empowered are things that can be bought. Lipstick and heels might make someone feel good to wear, but that is not actually being empowered. I feel like the word empowerment has been deliberately stripped of its tangible meaning to support consumerism and shift towards individualism, instead of collectivism and empowering oppressed groups.

[hadesoftheladies]

"No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless. There is too much work to do."

-Dorothy Day

[catterrificposts]

It’s kind of funny how conservatives are more pissed off at Barbie which is a mostly liberal soft take on feminism, versus Oppenheimer an anti-war, pro-union, anti-us government movie. It’s almost like they don’t care about their beliefs at all and only care about aesthetics. Oppenheimer was an entirely white cast so they didn’t bother to think too hard about its themes.

[queerpunktomatoes]

Today in class we talked about old politicians and one guy said, "If you're leaving, you can't order something for the table," and that just about took me out.

[croutonnet]

I genuinely and truly think that a lot of people aren't real feminists and fail to recognise the true values of feminism

[katarh-mest]

yes, Barbie failed as a critique of capitalism

and that's because I don't think the movie was even trying that hard to be a critique of capitalism in the first place, it was a critique of gender based class systems, systemic ageism, and the rigid boxes that boys and girls are put in instead

so yes of course it failed hard at the message it was not really trying to send

[bitchesgetriches]

The Pink Tax, or: How I Learned To Love Smelling Like Bearglove

Keep reading.

If you found this helpful, consider joining our Patreon