Is "Babe Feminism" Inherently Apolitical?

(I wasn't sure whether to post this in Lifestyles or Current Events, but I figured the responses received in CE would be of a more serious nature.)

I've been reading a bit about this topic recently, from books such as "My Guns Are In the Fendi: The Postfeminist Female Action Hero" by Cristina Stasia, to "Wake Up and Smell the Lipgloss: Gender, Generation, and the Apolitics of Girl Power" by Rebecca Munford, that compelled me to divulge on this topic on an open forum.

So, let me first give a little backround info on what "babe feminism" is, for those who aren't aware of it.

ANNA QUINDLEN, New York Times, Jan. 19, 1994

Basically, babe feminism conveys this idea that wearing high heels, lipstick, while carrying guns in your Gucci while kicking ass, is in and of itself a form of a feminism. Magazines such as Bitch or Bust, TV shows such as Buffy or Sex & the City, or even sites such as SuicideGirls are prime examples of babe feminist attitudes.

(p. 267-268 in Wake Up and Smell the Lipgloss)

So, here's my summary of Rebecca Munford's stance: She argues that "babe feminism," "girlie feminism," and "lipstick feminism" are inherently apolitical, because it revolves primarily around consumerism and goods consumption. She conveys the notion that much of the "girl power" movement has catapulted the ideals, that by strutting around in lip gloss, mini skirts, and high heels, one is exhibiting a false sense of empowerment that is purely derived from standards of imagery. And in a sense, this blatant consumerism has trivialized many important aspects that affects women, by perpetuating negative stereotypes of femme culture:

The reason I felt compelled to post this, is because I frequently hear women claiming that by posing nude for a site, or by engaging in promiscuous sex, that they are promoting feminist attitudes. It provoked a peculiar question within me: What does that necessarily mean? I certainly won't deny that forms of media such as SuicideGirls are most definitely fun, sassy, liberating, and daring (if that wasn't evident by my participation in the site)... but are they necessarily feminist? And more importantly, can I call myself a feminist simply because of my participation in these subscriptions, these sites, or these TV shows?

My main issue with this type of feminism, similar to Munford's, is that it primarily focuses on consumerist mentality, instead of tackling REAL issues that women face, such as domestic violence, rape, or job discrimination. That instead of addressing these very important issues, it instead focuses on what stiletto shoes I am wearing, how sexy I can be to look empowering, or how much attitude and "spunk" I can radiate. It certainly leads us to question our principles as humans, when the time, energy, and money invested on consumerist values could instead be spent on vital issues such as legislation, orchestrating conferences educating the masses on what fuels bigotry, or raising money to house victims of spousal abuse.

This is a predicament that is akin to the Sex & the City model. The incessant obsession with luxury goods such as donning Gucci handbags, to wearing those Manolo Blahnik pumps, all to enjoy the luxury of smoking a fine Cohiba cigar in a VIP Manhattan nightclub... It raises the question: Is becoming a slave to brand-name goods and luxury commodities TRULY a form of empowerment that women should be striving for? Are women actually beginning to believe that they are empowering themselves by purchasing Chanel bags, undergoing plastic surgery, playing with Barbies, or participating in corporate empires?

It is almost as if the underlying message caters to the mainstream public's desire to feel as if they participating in a public service by buying into a commodity, that has been branded under the false guise of the "feminist" label. Such superficial means of identity should be considered especially dangerous. In essence, it strives to detract individualism from the person, by manifesting the core principles around a constructed set of images. It follows materialist schools of thought, that it is not you who creates your own identity, but rather, the logos and material that you wear that comprises who you are.

Now, it is worthy of noting that many women I've witnessed who portray their outward image in ways that emanated from babe feminist ideals, were the same ones who exuded an aura of power and ego in their stature, posture, and the way that they carried themselves. This was indicative of behavior that only a superior sense of self-esteem could possibly convey. The implication here, is the fact that sometimes rebellion through image identity can prove to be fruitful, as it entails these women the privilege of attaining a sense of pride that may have not otherwise been discovered from merely being acquainted with other feminist schools of thought. On the other hand, should such examples characterize the idealized form of self-esteem, when this pride they have acquainted with themselves has stemmed solely from the sexualization of their own persons? If the only sense of pride one can obtain is from the objectification of the self, then perhaps such a depiction is only further evidence of the influence that mass media has ingrained upon our psyches.

I actually saw many parallels between this topic and the Save the Boobies campaign that centrally focused on the commercialization, marketing, and sexualization of breast cancer awareness. The fact, for example, that people have been deluded into believing that because they purchased yogurt or soap with the pink ribbon label on it, that they have committed their altruistic deed of the week. Similar to my gripes with the October 20th "wear purple to support gay rights" day, the "wear pink to support breast cancer" day is not representative of any intrinsic form of pioneering or activism. This form of politics is emblematic of a society that promotes activism through measures that don't necessarily pertain to any fundamental political change. It's almost as if society has tricked themselves into believing that by donning arbitrary colors such as pink or purple, they are provoking a new form of consciousness that will further evoke radical change. Rather, it reduces our mental awareness to instead focus on inconsequential matters, such as what apparel one is wearing.

Maybe it's a far reach... But what does everybody think about babe feminism, and all that encompasses it? Are female action heroes or "action babes," in their mostly exclusively white, upper-middle class caricatures (with mentalities devoid completely of modern politics), positive role models as feminists? Or does it merely trivialize feminism into a "who's beating up who" issue? I'm curious as to the input people on this board have...

This is something that Amanda Lotz wrote in "Theorizing the Intermezzo." She spoke of the fact that 3rd wave postfeminist mentality is shifting to this "feminism is whatever I want it to mean, even if it means wearing the color pink" type of mentality. And that this "what applies to me matters" rugged American individualist thought process loses a commitment to any sort of politics.

It's not necessarily the behaviors or the characteristics that are bothersome in and of themselves. People are free to do whatever it is that makes them happy, if they so choose to pursue it. It is the fact that some of these behaviors and characteristics are associated and often promoted side by side with feminism, when it may not necessarily portray the feminist ideal. Example: Beating people up in my Gucci suit in the name of "girl power" isn't exactly a positive, or even an important aspect of feminism. Hence the question over whether babe feminism is inherently apolitical.

I hope that clarifies things. I hate the fact that I can't organize my thought structure enough to get people to understand me. (Which frequently happens it seems)

Ahahahaha! Man, I never even thought about Sarah Palin as a babe feminist. That's hilarious, cause I can totally see it (the fact that she appears to have disdain for classical feminists only appears to further convey the postmodern 3rd wave mentality).


I guess I was thinking there might be a conflict of opinions, mainly because the people perusing this site are, well, on a site that revolves around babe feminist ideals.

Maybe I should rephrase my question to what subscriber's opinions are of this site, and whether the redefinition of beauty and everything this site promotes constitutes a form of feminism or not. Or the model's opinions, concerning whether or not they find this site empowering or liberating in any way, by defying social standards (or other reasons)?

1. "Babe feminism" seems similar to some veins of "choice feminism". I think that it's unfortunate that so many people seem to think that feeling/being empowered and being feminist are intrinsically connected. When I first started my time here at SG, I felt empowered and therefore felt that I was doing something feminist. Over the years, I think that that is wrong. A person can feel empowered by an action without making it a feminist action. For example, I'm currently doing some extensive and very useful therapy. Much of the time, I find it empowering. But because I am a woman and because I find it empowering, that doesn't make it a feminist action. People can make choices that are well-thought out and even empowering choices, but that doesn't make them inherently feminist. The same goes for taking the name of your spouse if you enter a heterosexual marriage, or wearing make-up or "sexy" clothes.

On top of that, those choices, even if they are empowering to an individual, still don't happen in a vacuum. As a feminist I find it important to at least acknowledge the framework in which those choices occurred, and even acknowledge that, for example, choosing my partner's name is not a feminist action, it's a neutral action. But hell, individuals can make actions that are somehow "anti-feminist" and still be feminists (depending on the action, for example I think being pro-life is inherently anti-feminist to the point where I am not comfortable with "pro-life feminists" because it seems like an oxymoron).

2. Another example would be that SuicideGirls isn't inherently feminist just because many find it empowering, or just because it gives so many of the SGs a great place to speak their own minds and be appreciated as individuals. I'm sure there are many SGs who would not want to label themselves as feminists or label being an SG as feminist. On top of that, let's not be naive: while one of the really great and fairly unique things about SG is the fact that so many of the models have their own voices and are appreciated as individuals 1. there are still plenty of models who are happy to just be looked at 2. there are plenty of members who don't give a shit what an SG thinks or who might in fact be turned OFF by knowing that an SG has opinions.

3. I don't even see why "babe feminism" needs to exist as a label. How about just accepting that there are some feminists who enjoy wearing short skirts and heals and being extra "feminine"? I feel like feeling some need to disconnect from feminism by adding the word "babe" to it sounds so similar to those who say "I'm a feminist but I'm not one of THOSE feminists", calling forth the negative stereotype of the "man-hating", unattractive and humorless feminist that they want to make sure everyone knows they most certainly are not. And I don't find that helpful to furthering equality for women.

Thanks for the responses so far. I received some really interesting blog posts and private messages regarding this issue...

And an act that would have worked to guarantee equal pay for women was shot down by 100% of Senate Republicans: link.

On top of that, I refuse to even come close to saying that feminism isn't as necessary when 1 in 4 (or 1 and 3 depending where you look) women are raped or sexually assaulted or abuse, where women aren't promoted because they might decide to have a family, where victim-blaming is easily accepted and even encouraged, and I could go on and on. On top of that in my mind feminism should address intersectionality, which means it doesn't "become less useful" until it also helps serve to address the issues many other marginalized people face.

And now that I think of it, there are feminists out there who would see "babe feminism" as inherently anti-feminist because they also see capitalism as anti-feminist/anti-equality.

Note: I am not one of them. I don't really LIKE capitalism but since I currently can't offer an alternative I generally just occasionally seethe about its faults.

On top of what Morgan said, you also have to bear in mind that the social group that this would apply to are primarily middle to upper class, western women. For women of low socioeconomic backgrounds, being financially "independent" (I'm using that term really loosely) means something else entirely different. Particularly for minority groups of low SES, where gender division of labor still exists, and women are expected to attend 1 or 2 jobs, and THEN come back home and complete all the housework, cook, and take care of the kids. That's a whole different form of working for your income that is entirely unique to what middle-upper crust women experience in the work force.

That's actually a really good point, and something that Winifred Woodhull discusses in her book. She basically argues that transnational capital has repressed women in 3rd world countries and exploited them for cheap labor. (Factories in China for example, typically tend to employ females to males on a ratio of 9:1). I personally am more of a fan of Woodhull's (if it weren't blatantly obvious lol), if only for the fact that feminism has now extended beyond its realm to discuss issues such as globalization.