The Scavenger

Salvaging whats left after the masses have had their feed

VSF-468x60

Thu08172017

Last updateWed, 12 Apr 2017 9am

Menu Style

Cpanel
Back You are here: Home Feminism & Pop Culture Fem2 Don’t rebrand feminism, reclaim it

Don’t rebrand feminism, reclaim it

FWordNegative stereotypes of feminism, their internalisation by many of us in our daily lives, and attempts to rebrand feminism to make it more palatable are all missing the mark, writes Kristin Aune.

10 October 2010

Declared dead, irrelevant, unfashionable, yet simultaneously responsible for a host of social ills, feminism has a bad rep.

In fact, feminism’s image in the mainstream media has been pretty awful over the last decade or so.

To give just a few British examples: ‘Bra-burning feminism has reached burn-out’, cried The Times in 2003, while the left-wing New Statesman bewailed ‘Where have all the feminists gone?’ (2006). This September, The Daily Mail declared: ‘It’s feminism we have to thank for the spread of fast-food chains and an epidemic of childhood obesity’.

These accusations affect how people see feminism. Research by Christina Scharff, Lecturer in Culture, Media and Creative Industries at King’s College London, seems to bear this out.

Based on interviews with 40 German and British women, Scharff investigated women’s perceptions of feminism. Three quarters didn’t see themselves as feminists, and the language they used to distance themselves from the F word revealed how media stereotypes have become ingrained in the vernacular.

The non-feminist women explained that they thought of feminists as: 1) unfeminine; 2) man-haters; and 3) lesbians. Stereotypes of dungarees, rugby shirts, hairy legs, short hair, a so-called ‘ugly’ appearance and, predictably, bra-burning (a long-held allusion to an event which never actually happened) accompanied their explanations.

And yet when asked to give examples of feminists they knew who fitted this description, no one could.

Scharff argues that by making these negative comments, the women were trying to show that they themselves represented more socially acceptable kinds of femininity: femininity that was heterosexual, not critical of men and associated with conventional beauty standards.

Not only is there a distinct whiff of homophobia here, but also of racial and religious stereotyping. Scharff’s interviewees said that they thought feminism was unnecessary in regions like Europe, Australia and North America, where women are able to achieve equality if they want it, unlike in predominantly Muslim countries, which they stereotyped as oppressive and in need of feminism.

Now, while there may be some truth in this – Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris’s book Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change shows that post-industrial, more secular countries score higher on measures of gender equality like female labour force participation, political leadership and literacy rates – these generalisations flattens out huge variations in women’s experiences worldwide.

On the whole then, feminism has a negative image.

Yet when it suits, feminist rhetoric is readily used by those who normally condemn feminism – such as when George Bush justified invading Afghanistan post-9/11 by asserting that it would free women from the oppression of the Taliban.

Feminism would not have been invoked were it not presumed to have some persuasive power, and this illustrates that post-industrial countries are not uniformly anti-feminist.

Rather, they are post-feminist: they appreciate some of feminism’s benefits and values while simultaneously rejecting its relevance to life in 21st-century affluent nations.

But we shouldn’t be pessimistic. While various studies show that around three-quarters of people aren’t feminists, they also show that one quarter are. One quarter of the population happy to say they believe the fight for women’s liberation isn’t over and willing to participate, in some way, in a movement for gender equality – isn’t that actually pretty impressive?

Some people argue that, because of its negative image, feminism needs rebranding to be attractive. In the UK, several women’s magazines have attempted this, and the ‘(Re)branding Feminism’ conference to be held in 2011 in  London, seems also to be taking this tack.

Part of this call for rebranding focuses on feminism’s supposed irrelevance to a new generation. If feminism’s about sour-faced hairy-legged, dungaree-clad women, it (supposedly) must be something younger women aren’t interested in.

But that’s a big ‘if’. A good proportion of young women are feminists – a 2007 survey of 3,200 members of Girlguiding UK found that two-thirds of 16 to 25-year-olds were happy to call themselves feminists.

Plus, most feminists aren’t put off by stereotypes describing them as ‘hairy-legged dykes’ – they’re more likely to condemn the sexism and homophobia behind these stereotypes. And wearing dungarees, for a brief period in the late 1970s and early 80s, actually placed you at the height of fashion.

Trying to attract people to feminism by rebranding it as cool and cuddly doesn’t work. Feminism without any mention of sexism, patriarchy, or any critique of (some) men’s behaviour is hardly feminism at all.

One recent British book, whose blurb declared ‘Feminism has come a long way since the days of bra-burning and man-bashing’ and went on to argue that ‘Being a feminist is what you want it to be’, didn’t go down well.

So feminism has to be more than a tepid call for women’s right to make their own choices. For our so-called ‘choices’ are not freely made, since they are bound up in a whole package of social, cultural and historical expectations and legacies.

A woman may ‘choose’ to do more housework than her male partner because, she reasons, she’s more bothered by mess, he brings home more money, and it’s too much trouble having to nag him.

But does this mean his neglect of housework is unproblematic since she’s ‘chosen’ to do it herself? Isn’t her heavier burden related, somehow, to capitalism’s historic relegation of women to unpaid domestic labour in the private sphere, dependence on a male breadwinner or lower-paid part-time work?

The concept of ‘choice’ has to be critiqued, so that women (and men) can understand and challenge their disadvantaged positions in a social system which is still structured by patriarchy and capitalism.

So negative stereotypes of feminism, their internalization by many of us in our daily lives, and attempts to rebrand feminism to make it more palatable are all missing the mark.

In the debate about younger people and the F word, there is one further issue to address: the generational tensions between younger and older feminists.

A feminist conference in Sydney in April 2010 – the biggest of its kind in 15 years – mused on the so-called generation gap in feminism.

Older feminists have expressed fear that younger women are selling out to a ‘style without substance’ kind of feminism. Are they emphasizing empowerment through fashion and sexual exhibitionism while ignoring the issues that brought the second wave onto the streets (e.g. reproductive rights, violence against women and economic equality)?

In her book Not My Mother’s Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism, Astrid Henry shows that from the 1990s in the US, younger feminists tried to define a new ‘third-wave’ feminism by contrasting themselves with their second-wave (1960s and 70s) foremothers. Rebecca Walker, founder of the Third Wave Foundation and daughter of second-wave novelist Alice Walker, embodied these generational tensions.

But in the UK, and increasingly elsewhere too, there is very little evidence of generational wars. For our new book Reclaiming the F Word: The New Feminist Movement, Catherine Redfern and I surveyed nearly 1,300 feminists involved in feminist groups, events and campaigns that formed since 2000.

The survey revealed that 85% think that the important feminist issues are similar to those of the 1970s. The three issues of greatest concern for the 1,300 (three-quarters of whom were under 35) were equality at work and home, violence against women, and issues related to women’s bodies (including abortion, reproductive rights, body image and motherhood).

Fascinatingly, these are classic second-wave feminist concerns.

Feminists today are, on the whole, a positive bunch of people who spend more time counteracting sexism in today’s world than harking back to the ‘good old days’ of 1970s feminism or attacking their feminist foremothers.

What are they doing to make the world a better place? Let’s take a few examples.

  • In a bid to challenge gender stereotyping in education and employment and increase the numbers of females studying engineering at university, non-profit organisation Robogals, based at University of Melbourne, teaches primary school girls about LEGO robotics. Robogals runs workshops to get girls excited about science and engineering.  In 2009, with 300 dancers, they won the Guinness World Record for the ‘Largest Robot Dance’.
  • The UK is currently facing an avalanche of public sector and welfare cuts. The Fawcett Society, the leading campaigning organisation for gender equality, calculates that women will shoulder 72% of the proposed cuts. Fawcett has launched a legal challenge, arguing that the government should have taken account of the gender implications of the proposed cuts. An established organisation with roots in the campaign for women’s suffrage, Fawcett has recently experienced in influx of younger members and new local groups have been formed.
  • Formed in 2007, Muslimah Media Watch exposes negative media reporting on Muslim women. They run a blog exposing the stereotyping, harassment and violence against Muslim women and provide a space for Muslim women to critique Islamophobic images.
  • Outraged by the sexism in the Twilight vampire films, where the passive ‘heroine’ Bella swoons over a chauvinist ‘hero’ Edward, Jonathan McIntosh created a remixed version of the most problematic scenes. His ‘Buffy vs Edward’ video replaced Bella’s reactions with those of proto-feminist Buffy the Vampire Slayer. His video was an internet hit, with over 2 million views.

So despite its bad rep, feminism is alive and active – and still awfully necessary.

Forget rebranding feminism. Let’s continue to reclaim it instead.

FWordKristin Aune is a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Derby, UK. She is the author – with Catherine Redfern – of Reclaiming the F Word: The New Feminist Movement. Published by Zed Books.

Image by Morning Theft, issued under a Creative Commons licence.

 

 

Comments   

0 #8 J. Durden 2011-01-11 05:22
I love that some dude's YouTube video rebranding Twilight is used as one of the three bullet points to demonstrate that feminists are still out there doing "awfully necessary" work. That was a joke, right?
Quote
0 #7 Jan L. 2011-01-10 06:20
But really, all those 16-25 year olds, you think they all know what equality is? It's real easy to throw around the "F" word without actually knowing it's meaning. It's easy because once you know the rest of the gang is with you it's easier to bully someone else. Feminism, for a lot, is only used to have power over someone else nowadays, and by someone I mean men.

What do you think would happen if I were to say that I believe in equality but have some issues with feminism amongst my friends and acquaintances? They would think I was a chauvinistic pig and a far right loon. 'Cause that's exactly what happened to me.

Just look around you, who are the people claiming to be feminists? Amongst friends and such? I have one that's teaching feminism to school-kids (through a special program), preaching about equality all day and telling me to get educated, the same guy is having more sex than caligula, gotten several STDs and then bragging about his "trophies", his trophies being the women.
Another one who has gone to more genus-classes than I can remember and been a advocate for feminism since childhood, she says men has no place in feminism and men deserve to be 2nd class citizens because of former oppression. And then my third friend you can't even say "woman" anymore, we are all "hen", from the Swedish "han" and "hon" (him and her). She believes there should be no gender.

Now, these are all the feminist that come to mind, those I know. It's one thing to read about it in a book how wonderful feminism "could've" been, but how it turned out is nothing close to equality.
Quote
0 #6 Richard 2010-11-29 11:40
Feminism was never about equality. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we'll all be much much better off.
Quote
0 #5 Lovekraft 2010-11-27 10:41
Hm. A couple phrases come to mind here:

You made your bed, feminists, now sleep in it.

or

You reap, feminists, what you sow.
Quote
0 #4 Domina 2010-11-26 19:29
Quote:
Feminism without any mention of sexism, patriarchy, or any critique of (some) men’s behaviour is hardly feminism at all.
There you go. Says it all, really. Feminism is not about equal opportunities or lack of gender bias. It is about being sexist; about a form of family structure literally outlawed in the UK by the 1920s; and about finding fault in men. Yet later on she declares "Feminists today are, on the whole, a positive bunch of people."
Quote
0 #3 MissA 2010-11-26 17:30
You're forgetting other wonderful things feminism has done like;
sexual harrassment (so now men don't trust women in the workplace, we can get men fired just for looking at us funny)
affiriitive action (so now men don't respect women in the workplace, we only got the job because we're women)
domestic violence (so now men don't trust OR respect us in relationships, we can have them locked up with a single word while beating them to our heart's content)
reproductive rights (so now men refuse to settle and have children, since legally he's only there as a wallet)

Honestly, the only 'empowerment' feminism has given us in the power to hurt the men in our lives. For women with husbands, boysfriends, sons and fathers that's just not something to be proud of.

You mentioned we generally want to have a hetrosexual feminity. That's because we're mostly hetrosexual. You can lash out and call us homophobic all you want, that doesn't change the fact we're straight. If fact, hating me because I'm not the kind of lesbian you want makes you an example of the stereotypical feminists those women were describing.
Quote
0 #2 fidelbogen 2010-11-24 23:41
I would like to call attention to the picture at the top of the column, which shows a young woman clenching her fist and flexing her bicep, with a look of sneering bravado on her face.

I would then call attention to what is generally stated in the first few paragraphs of the article, which sits immediately next to the picture.

Briefly, these paragraphs inform us that feminism has a nasty reputation.

I would ask the reader to reflect upon this, and to take a second look at the picture of the young woman while doing so, and to ponder the contextualizati on which the picture gives to the words in the article.

I would then ask the reader if the irony and hypocrisy are not immediately evident . . and how anybody could possibly miss it?


Finally, I would ask the reader to consider the celebrated Hans Christian Andersen fable about the little boy and the naked emperor.
Quote
0 #1 David Skidmore 2010-10-12 17:05
I tend to hear what people like Alan Jones have to say about feminism. Then I think the complete opposite.
Quote

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Personal Development

personal-development
Be the change.