The GSB

Warning: parts of the forthcoming post might come across as bitchy, contentious, and/or offensive (more so than usual).  Please be advised that the point of me expressing my opinion on the below described subject matter is to (a) address larger social phenomena and (b) to highlight the importance of productive, intelligent discourse on sensitive topics.  If you are easily offended or get riled up by the notion of women criticizing things which fall under the penumbra of feminism, please cease reading this post immediately.

I recently came across a little post on xoVain (a beauty-centric offshoot of xoJane, which, of course, is the cyber phoenix of the now-defunct Jane Magazine) that might have been written as a cute/funny “shit that annoys educated progressive thoughtful women” attempt, but which, in effect, came off as rather offensive to me. The post was a seeming call to arms (or rather, a call to fingernails) against the trend of offensive nail polish names.  While the observations in the post are definitely on point (polish titles are totally in the gutter, and getting more and more crass with every season), the post’s title and greater implications thereof were what I found most grating thought-provoking.

Sure, if I had a tween daughter who asked the manicurist to paint her nails an opaque beige called “Load,” I’d probably feel a brief pang of “WTF IS THIS WORLD COMING TO!?!?” but the world is so far past the point of oversexualization, that a polish with a name like “Skank at the Bank” (which, I’d imagine, would be iridescent pink with green dollar signs and copper glitter…note to self: create a prototype of that shit pronto) is the least of society’s concerns.  Yes, the overall complaint is not totally without merit, as an argument can be made that slutty nail polish titles aren’t helping the cause of de-objectifying women (and, more importantly, young girls), but with stores like Justice selling skimpy underwear and crop tops with suggestive writing to eleven-year-olds, with Material Girl at Macy’s targeting tweens with its lace and fishnet racy offerings; with “Milkshake” being played at middle school talent shows, Hanna Montana propagating pole dancing in lieu of wholesome entertainment to the same demographic, Honey Boo Boo serving as an ad hoc nutritionist and beauty consultant, and the Kardashians working it as both role models for girls and a litmus test/limbo pole for how low societal values will go, I’d say that grimy, sexual stuff (as well as grimy stuff in general) has unfortunately become a constellation of norms, settling as part of our collective consciousness.  And this collective consciousness does not discriminate against age or sex, in the sense that is has permeated every corner of everyone’s life; we can’t shield kids or girls or grannies from where the world is turning.

Though “it is what it is” might not be a satisfactory answer or solution to reconciling one’s own (and perhaps morally just, well-meaning, and reasonable) concerns against the filth that the world of pop consumerist culture is spewing, it’s important to approach these things from the right angle (or, preferably, from several angles), to choose one’s battles, and to attempt to move forward and rationally readjust to a rapidly changing world.  I don’t mean that we have to accept the fact that we now live in a place dictated by bouncing fake tits, slut bracelets, teenage pregnancy pacts and a general dilution of the feminine mystique, but we do have to understand that these prevalent trends have many causes, explanations, and ramifications, some of which are bad, some good, and some neutral.  To call one such trend “un-feminist” because it challenges a more traditional notion of what may be construed as offensive or harmful to women can, in my opinion, cause as much of a backlash as the trend itself.  Such a claim can also be argued to be rooted in a factual fallacy, if we consider recent history.  This brings me to the subject of feminism, particularly third-wave feminism, as this movement was what spurred a vast expansion, reconceptualization (and, accordingly, stratification) of what “the other F word” came to represent.

A primer on the 3 waves of feminism: the three waves of feminism, though obviously up for some interpretation, are roughly divided into the first wave (19th to mid-20th century), second wave (1960s-1980s), and third wave (1990s+).  While the first wave focused on fighting for basic equal rights (voting, education, labor, property ownership), the second wave, also known as the Women’s Liberation Movement, delved more specifically into sexual, familial, and reproductive rights, as it challenged traditional norms of  family structure and a woman’s role within (and outside of) it.  It opened up the floor for a hotly debated, broad spectrum of issues which were never previously discussed openly (violence, rape, matrimonial law, abortions).  The first two waves achieved an incredible amount of change over the course of roughly 150 years, both on the legislative and social fronts.  Issue by issue, women acquired more rights, more freedoms, and more opportunities.  Perhaps even more importantly, these rights, freedoms and opportunities saw more and more support, and, finally acceptance, to the point that they are finally seen as norms (at least in some sense).  The paradigm shift from shameless sexism to a respectful and understanding equality has been vast (although this is a rosy oversimplification that is mostly applied to the American middle-class, and we obviously have a VERY long way to go).  It is from the accomplishments of the first and second waves of feminism that the third wave arose, broadening the spectrum for discourse, policy change, and issue position even farther.  The third wave utilized many forms of self-expression (high five to the Riot Grrrl movement) and was, arguably, much more open-minded and cognizant of the fact that in order to effectuate lasting and significant change, the feminist movement needed to expand beyond the scope of the opinions of white, middle-class women.

The third wave,  contemporaneously with the DIY movement and all of its subsidiaries, was partly comprised of young and inquisitive Gen-X-ers, who were disgruntled with their wealth-obsessed parents, concerned about where the world was headed, and earnestly interested in educating themselves and others about an array of social and political causes.  With a climate ripe for even MORE! change, independent thinking and freedom of expression turned in a whole new direction.  Compounded by these factors, the third wave addressed issues of race, sexual orientation, sexuality, the preconceived notions of femininity (as well as feminism), and sought to convey that no singular definition for feminism or the typical female should exist: all women are unique (a quality that’s to be embraced), no woman should be expected to fit any mold, every woman is entitled to her beliefs, and shedding light on as many women’s issues, opinions and struggles as possible is conducive to elevating the conversation and achieving progress.

The third wave rebelled against its predecessors in several ways, but one particular difference that struck a nerve with many “old-timers” was the notion that women are free to do whatever they please, sexually and otherwise: pornography is not necessarily degrading, dressing provocatively does not necessarily convey self-loathing or invite trouble, engaging in intimate activities with multiple sex partners does not necessarily objectify women, and using one’s good looks (or goods) for whatever purposes of personal gain is not necessarily a “step in the wrong direction” for women.  The key element in all these ideas is the definitive lack of a concrete position: femininity is personal and individual, and nobody can take a singular issue, act, or example and classify it as pro- or anti-feminist.  While these issues should be discussed, debated, and given much thought, they should also be seen as a gray area, and not singularly watered down to feminist or un-feminist.  At first, the view that there is no universal view of “typical feminism” was met with friction (heck, it still is!), but with time, it’s become accepted that women should just be free to choose (to abort or carry, to get a PhD or an “MRS,” to wear fishnets or turtlenecks, etc), free to act as they please, and free to cherry-pick how they feel about issues without having to succumb to the pro-/anti- feminism mold.  It is this last point that seems to get lost on many “progressive-thinking” women: that one does NOT have to do/say/believe A, B, C, and D in order to be F[emale].

***

I picked up my first issue of Jane long before I knew what feminism was.  From that first issue, I appreciated the mag for its goofy offbeat alternative (before the term “alternative” carried a pathetic, preconceived conformist connotation) edge. It was forward-thinking, addressed contentious and contemporary social issues, and balanced style/culture reporting with free-flowing prose, all while maintaining grace and a sense of humor.  Because I never read Sassy as a girl, I was not aware of the magazine’s mission or target demo, but my impression was that if Marie Claire and Vice had a cool, funny daughter who went to Eugene Lang, dabbled in freestyle walking and lived on the LES, Jane would be it.  Though the mag certainly had its loyal fan base, it fell victim to the truncation of the periodical industry and folded in 2007, a decade after its launch.

A year ago, when I randomly noticed Jane’s return via cyberspace, I was really excited. I still visit the site and read the stories somewhat regularly, but I do see a fundamental shift in tone, coverage, conversation, etc from the magazine to the present day website: there’s a lot more snarking, whining, judgment and negativity, and a lot less fun, free-spirited, productive discussion. I realize that changing the format of a publication from a monthly [semi]glossy mag to a viral confessional free-for-all has a lot to do with how things are reported, edited, discussed and perceived.  I also realize that the world has changed drastically over the last five years, but I was hoping that the spirit of Jane would stay at least partially intact. And maybe it has, but I have a hard time seeing it. (Make sure to read Cakes & Shakes’ very excellent discussion of the denouement happening over at xojane and other “edgy girl” sites here.)

What the website does isn’t all bad. On the one hand, women (and everyone else, of course) should have a forum online where they have free reign to write whatever they choose (including weird misanthropic shit), especially if they would not be comfortable sharing it elsewhere. A lot of positive can come out from sharing stories of social awkwardness and bizarre experiences which feel alienating for many individuals, as sharing helps people realize that they’re not alone.  It’s cathartic, it helps others, it’ s a healthy expression and confrontation of a painful issue: all great things.  Many comments from readers are very supportive and positive, and a lot of gratitude for “being brave enough to share” is expressed there, which I think is also hugely important.  I love all this about the website.

But a lot of negativity can arise from the “new fem overshare” too. Yes, uniqueness is great and everything, and celebrating it is great, but when you (intentionally or unintentionally) create a mold for said uniqueness, all of a sudden a new mold–a “feminism-as-a-non-conformist mold”–begins to take shape. I cannot stand this phenomenon of counterculture: you think that by rejecting some preconceived norm, you are transcending it, and those who reject the norm transcend it with you, allowing all rejectors of preconceived norms to respect each other’s differences, but in reality, you are expected to follow a specific non-conformist school of thought, dress, and behavior just like the rest of the non-conforming group.  And if you don’t conform to the non-conforming group, you’re an outcast, a traitor, or a poser.

Bringing that conforming-to-the-non-conformist-group notion back to the third wave of feminism, this form of typecasting is precisely what the movement was trying to curb: there should be no expected norm, not for men, not for women, not for feminists, not for post-third-wave-cyberspace-reliant-feminists.  The third wave school of thought argues that “having it all” means different things to different women, and that we don’t have to take the same exact position on the same set of issues all the time; we have a right–no, we have an obligation to ourselves–to have individual beliefs and values.  We don’t have to embrace dimple piercings or ironically curled bangs, a closet full of animal-shaped dildos or power suits in attempt to fulfill new and old “bold woman” archetypes in order to actually be bold women.  (We also don’t have to strive to be bold women unless we actually want to.)  We don’t have to agree or disagree with an expected position on some issue just because “we’re women and we have to stick together.” We should respect each other’s opinions, yes, and when forming our own opinions on issues we should probably weigh the facts against reality and consider how said factors impact our lives and the lives of other women, but no woman should ever be chained to any real or imagined obligatory paradigm of reasoning.

But it’s far easier to just coast along some niche, preconceived alternative lifestyle (the one that is propagated in the xoJane/xoVain corner of cyberspace appears to require pastel hair streaks, a membership card to My Strange Addiction, and a deep-rooted disdain for anything that smells remotely of convention) than to follow one’s own path without regard for how one will be perceived.  Now, I could be totally wrong here, and my assessment could be completely off-base, but this is the impression that I get when I visit those websites: that you had better be ultra-progressive, alterna-retroglam-kistchy-quirky-tomboy-chic to have right to the floor (the cyber equivalent of “fitting in” in real life).   As a matter of fact, I feel like I shouldn’t even be allowed to enter the URL of either site because I’m a suburban yuppie who is infatuated with J. Crew, salads, and working out.  Like I’m just not cool enough to hang out with the edgy girls who evidently take “feminism version 3.1″ so seriously.

(By the way, as I’ve mentioned before, this is why I have a huge fundamental problem with pretty much every “alternative” counter-culture group, from hippies to hipsters: the whole “oh, just be yourself…” bullshit that they throw at you only applies if you follow their very specific guidelines for what “being yourself” entails.  This is also why I can never identify with any major social categorization in general: I am not a liberal, or a conservative, or a feminist, or a nihilist, because I will not be told what to think, how to look, or what to do.  I am just a person.  I have the right to be aloof, to say shit that some ultra-sensitive hyper-litigious beta people might find offensive, to appreciate things that are both traditional AND progressive, and to have beliefs which might reside beyond the realm of spreading awareness about the plight of women or purple dolphins or the non-organic lifestyle.)

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m totally appreciative of the Gloria Steinems and Kate Chopins, the Amelia Earharts and the countless women who bravely stood up and said “I don’t give a fuck what you say, I am going to do what I have set out to do” so that other women could follow. I wholeheartedly support the cause of helping women around the world achieve equal rights (social, economical, sexual, etc). I very much respect and look up to women who have done great things (for women and for society), but I just don’t see how talking about dildo accouterments,  sex sprees,  and exhibitionism is decidedly feminist, but provocatively-titled nail polish is un-feminist. The nail polish blurb is an over-simplified example of a far greater problem of our label-happy thought process, by the way.  The significance of this example is not in its substance but in the fact that we feel the need to constantly classify and categorize and put phenomena in boxes, to label people and things, to make brash assessments, and to do so without considering the flip-side.  Things are either decidedly feminist or decidedly not.  Things are either decidedly good or decidedly bad.  People are either decidedly right or decidedly wrong.  There is no room for consideration (or for the possibility that a conclusion was reached preemptively or erroneously).  In its most recent incarnation, feminism urges women to think outside of the box, feminist and otherwise.  It appears that when propagators of counter-culture team up with propagators of feminism, the message of women’s lib gets misconstrued, sometimes significantly.  This was, of course, bound to happen, but we should do something to fix it.  The sooner we drop the “feminist” label altogether, and think of shit not in terms of whether it fits a certain [highly subjective] standard, but whether or not it makes people (women) feel good, confident, understood, and comfortable, the sooner we might actually see some tangible progress toward consistent respect and equality.  Whistle-blowing “YOU GUYS!!!! THIS IS NOT FEMINIST!!!” is probably not the best way to call attention to an issue, let alone to resolve it.

I know that I  sound like a hypocrite for criticizing those who love to pass judgement, given that all I am doing in this post is passing judgment on women for…passing judgment on women…but the main point that I am trying to make is that while we are entitled to, and most certainly ought to, keep having conversations about whatever issues concern us (no matter how petty, taboo, weird, or schadenfreude-inducing they might be), we should focus less on sounding “feminist” and focus more on being grounded and reasonable people.  I don’t mean that we should be a bunch of politically correct pansies who are afraid to speak their minds.  I just mean that we should transcend trying to fulfill any sort of expectation, regardless of what that expectation is or where it originates. Instead of calling people out for not being “feminist enough” or labeling anyone anything other than human, it would serve us better to just be honest, open, and accepting, universally.  We need to remember and understand that there is a greater world beyond a niche on a website, that somewhere out there, someone has it far worse than us, and that there is not a single correct opinion on any particular matter in this world.

Just as the third wave of feminism sought (seeks) to underscore, we are all different.  We should respect–heck, we should welcome–each other’s differences, but we should do so without shunning each other’s lifestyle choices.  So, while I’m not offended that someone in particular has an opinion on the possible detriments of nail polish names, I’m kind of taken aback by the fact that there are people out there who think that any quotidian thing can be reduced to “feminist” or “un-feminist.”  Neither tangible things nor experiences should be assessed on some scale of “feminist” potential.  Sometimes we should just take stuff at face value, which, in the case of the question raised by the nail polish post, would entail picking out a bottle of nail polish based on how its color suits our needs, how well it applies, and how wearing it makes us feel, without even looking at the label.  Actually, it’s amazing how rewarding it is to eschew labels (of any form) altogether.