|
by Marni Davis
The Postfeminist Playground is part of a current trend in feminism which is more concerned about men than women. The goal is no longer to make men aware of misogyny and injustice — it's more important that men not be turned off. A primary tenet is that mainstream feminism — too prudish and not enough fun — doesn't allow women to feel 'sexy'. To that end, Susannah Breslin and Lily James — co-founders of the Postfeminist Playground — are the ideological sisters of the Spice Girls, who shriek endlessly about 'Girl Power,' which seems to mean nothing more than the right to be taken seriously while exposing one's belly button. It's not a particularly convincing refutation of sexist power structures.
"A primary tenet is that mainstream feminism — too prudish and not enough fun — doesn't allow women to feel 'sexy'"
The goal of feminism wasn't to make men feel good; it was to make them confront both systemic sexism and the ways in which they exploited and discriminated against women in their personal lives. That men didn't always have a groovy time with women's liberation was a given and a necessity, since men were the perpetrators of the injustices feminism was created to rectify. Previous to second-wave feminism, there was no widespread, mainstream American ethos that demanded that men at least contemplate the possibility that women should be treated as equals. Feminism created that, and many men didn't like it at all. (First-wave feminism was the 19th and early 20th century fight for women's suffrage. Second-wave feminists — the Women's Lib movement of the '60s and early '70s — demanded more than the basic human and constitutional rights their predecessors had won. They wanted absolute equality.)
Admittedly, second-wave feminism failed to evolve in a sex-positive way, and this is something that has long and desperately needed correcting. But is being 'sexy' the way to get there? And is anyone pausing to consider what 'sexy' means?
Both the PFPsters and the Spicesters are directly descended from Madonna, who, since the launch of her career, has worked the smart-and-powerful-yet-fuckable woman angle like no one before or since. Not that there's anything intrinsically Women's Zoneong with this image — women have the right to be taken seriously while displaying their sexuality any way they please — but this emphasis on the fuckability of feminists misses the point entirely. Particularly if such renditions never venture beyond mainstream versions of sexiness. Women's magazines are equally guilty of this, and are often even more anxiety-provoking; the message of publications like Mademoiselle and Allure is that you will never find success in any aspect of your life, even your career as a powerful corporate executive, unless men find you sexually attractive. This refusal to discuss the meaning of 'sexy' — as opposed to 'feminine sexuality' — is a major failure.
So, then, let's define our terms. 'Sexuality' is a sense of libidinal self, and an inner, individual construction. 'Sexy,' on the other hand, is an external construction, determined by the larger culture. To be sexual is to be the subject, and in control; to be sexy is to be the object, looked at and judged. And one of the goals of post-second-wave feminist theory has been to question this external, cultural definition of 'sexy,' and create a world where women don't need to internalize and conform to these formations to feel like sexual beings.
"'Sexuality' is a sense of libidinal self, and an inner, individual construction. 'Sexy,' on the other hand, is an external construction, determined by the larger culture."
I'd like to think that this is what Breslin means when she writes in the PFP FAQ, 'Women are very excited and feel validated about wanting to be sexy and smart, female and strong.' But this fails to confront the issue of who defines sexy. Are women going to have the opportunity to make it up for themselves, on a chick-to-chick basis? According to PFP's bumper stickers, apparently not; their definition of sexy includes images that feminists have been fighting for years: '98% Fat Free'; and 'Postfeminism ... Because a Great Body is a Terrible Thing to Waste.' Both stickers are illustrated with cartoons of — you guessed it — tall skinny babes.
PFP, and others of their ilk, fail to acknowledge that sexiness, too, is a sort of text which exists within a specific historical context. Sexy is a fiction, determined mainly by commercial factors that have nothing to do with real sexuality — whatever that is for you. And promoting sexist and constricting definitions of what 'sexy' means betrays an individual-oriented and retrograde — as opposed to a collective and progressive — approach to women's rights. While many of us are living the dream of second-wave feminism — in more ways than we comprehend, usually — there are still millions of women all over the world, and probably surprisingly close to us as well, who are politically, economically, sexually oppressed. The goal of feminism was, and is, to eradicate this oppression everywhere, not just in our own lives. To quote Backlash author Susan Faludi, in a dialogue between her and revisionist feminist Karen Lehman at Slate, "It's not enough for me to look in the mirror. I've got to look out the window — and take responsibility for what I see."
Girl Power-ful girls are sexy, strong, empowered, sex-positive, and obsessed with the mirror. My guess is that they could give a shit about the window.
Join the Girl Power debate in the Women's Zone Conference.
Marni Davis is a graduate student at the New School for Social Research in New York City. Her work has appeared in The New York Press, Bust, and Tripod's Tools for Life magazine.
© 1997 Tripod, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
