Luxe Lean and Social Media Trends: Feminist Perspectives

     As the well-anticipated Wicked Two’s film release drew near, the cast often promoted their movie through visibility in public; however, rather than creating hype around the movie, it instead left audiences perplexed, as the age-old question reared its head, “is she too thin?” The past ten years have been a time of body positivity with curvier models hitting runways and women supporting a variety of body shapes. Yet just this last year brought dramatic shifts in expectations of women’s bodies by returning to the 90's extremely thin body ideal.  

              While much of this shift can be traced back to a variety of media sources within our culture, a large portion of the recent shift began as an aesthetic TikTok trend wrapped in wellness jargon. As the trend developed, influencers became mere objects reinforcing hegemony, and with the shift in ideals, came the natural change in followers' views, likes and adds. Influencers quickly learned that body objectification would grow their audience, increase their visibility, and gain additional likes, which not only reinforced the objectification of women, but further allowed women to also view one another as objects. As this body image has slowly become the norm, women not only began to follow the trends, but further objectified their own bodies. It is as French philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, states, “a woman is not born a woman, but becomes one” (Beauvoir 2020). Overtime, this trend has taken over social media platforms and has become widely accepted, as women around the world attempt to rebrand themselves as “that girl.” Women were not born this way, and yet this desirable trend falls into the phenomenon of male gaze, as women are increasingly objectified on social media platforms.     

           Equally interesting is how this trend has developed overtime. Just recently, the term luxe lean was coined, with the idea that thin, in shape bodies signified wealth due to privileges needed to sustain them: gym memberships, healthy foods, supplements, GLP-1 time, and so forth. All of which goes beyond radical feminist perspectives, but further touches on Marxist perspectives as it has moved from equal access to privileged. While this may not be due to inequality in women’s pay, it does favor privilege while pushing hegemonic assumptions benefitting the wealthy.  

Regardless of its theory, women’s bodies continue to be blatantly objectified within media, perpetuating social norms. While this messaging had previously created ads, sold movies, and made magazines, it is now so prevalent within our daily lives, that young girls are regularly scrolling through reels observing the thin bodies while absorbing the occluded messages of many of their favorite influencers. As this messaging continues to attract followers and women are increasingly objectified, how does our society counter a trend heavy media maintaining hegemonic ideology that creates a sense of powerlessness in women and men alike?

Jennifer Lawrence - She’s Glamorous, She’s Awkward, and She Runs Hollywood

Jennifer Lawrence has always felt a little different from how female celebrities are usually expected to show up. On the surface, she checks all the traditional boxes of femininity. She’s beautiful, she looks incredible on red carpets, and she’s often cast in roles that lean into that. But the moment she opens her mouth in an interview, that polished image starts to unravel in the best way. She’s blunt, sarcastic, a little awkward, and clearly not interested in being prim or proper. And somehow, instead of that hurting her career, it’s beco me part of why she’s so successful.

What’s interesting about Lawrence, especially when you think about it through a feminist lens, is that she doesn’t separate how she looks from how she acts. Sellnow talks about how media tends to reward women who perform femininity the “right” way. That usually means being polite, emotionally restrained, and easy to like. Lawrence pushes back on that without really announcing that she’s doing it. She still shows up looking glamorous, but her humor and delivery undercut the expectation that she also needs to be quiet, agreeable, or overly polished.

You can see this in how people talk about her. She’s constantly described as “relatable,” which is kind of telling. Male actors can be blunt or awkward without anyone making a big deal out of it, but when a woman does it, it suddenly becomes part of her brand. Lawrence feels relatable because she doesn’t filter herself to fit a narrow idea of how women are supposed to behave in public. She jokes about uncomfortable topics, openly calls out sexism in the industry, and doesn’t pretend to be perfectly composed all the time. Feminist criticism reminds us that those choices matter. Women who speak that way are often labeled as difficult or unprofessional. The fact that Lawrence continues to thrive complicates that pattern.

At the same time, "Beauty and the Patriarchal Beast" helps explain why her case still feels a little rare. Walsh, Fürsich, and Jefferson point out that the media often allows women to bend the rules as long as it feels non-threatening. Lawrence’s humor plays a big role here. Her humor makes her bluntness more acceptable by softening what might otherwise come off as challenging or disruptive. This prompts a larger question: is her authenticity genuinely appreciated, or merely tolerated because of its charm?

On a personal level, I find her delivery relatable because it reflects a version of femininity that doesn’t require constant self editing. She shows that you don’t have to choose between being feminine and being outspoken. Her continued dominance in Hollywood makes me wonder if audiences are more ready for complex, less polished representations of women than the industry often gives them credit for.

Does Jennifer Lawrence show that women can act outside traditional femininity now, or is her success more of an exception than the norm?

Feminism featuring Hermione & Velma

Feminism is an issue that has been around for a long time. When talking about the health and awareness of how women are perceived, it has certainly shifted over the years, but the physical emphasis remains. Women are still seen as no more important than their physical attributes. The prettier, the more leverage they have in the world, or so the media makes it seem. 

Although this is portrayed more often than not, there is also an intellectual aspect that is often overlooked. Thinking about the iconic Hermione Granger from Harry Potter, she is very knowledgeable and gets her trusty pals Harry and Ron out of some sticky situations because of what she knows. Although she is clearly the smartest in any situation, she is also portrayed as a know-it-all and can come off as annoying. Because of this, it has a bad connotation as the only girl in the trio of friends. 

This is also clear in the classic Scooby-Doo cartoons. There is Velma, who is witty and knows a lot about what is going on. She is the one who crunches the numbers and creates the best plan for the group. She sports an orange sweater that hides her features and big black glasses. Neither of which is the normal “hot girl” look. In comparison to Daphne, her outfits complement her features well, and she is known as the pretty one of the group. She is also the one who has a boyfriend, Fred. Not Velma, who is the knowledgeable one, but Daphne, who is the pretty one. This is showing younger girls that being pretty is more important than being intelligent because being pretty gets the reward of a man. 

As explained in Sellnow’s Feminist Perspectives chapter, “Popular culture critics who examine how mediated texts negatively stereotype men with feminine traits and women with masculine traits.” In Scooby Doo and Harry Potter, the smarts attribute is given to the women as described. Although there are many movies with smart men, they often come in a nerdy fashion, such as Person of Interest, Finch, who is the brainiac with glasses and a limp, and is not seen in a more masculine role, such as Mr. Reese, who is the muscle of the operation.

In both Harry Potter and Scooby Doo, the ones deemed smart are also attributed to women's roles. There is something to be said that this is not an unusual thing for a woman to be the voice of reason or the smartest and calmest in a situation.

A question to ponder on is, how can the awareness of feminism and the effect it is having on the youth of today be increased, and is there any hope for this new generation to create more equality both in the media and in real life? 

Titanic and the Symbolism of the Heart of the Ocean

 In studying for the upcoming midterm, I’ve been making time to go through the prior readings for this class. One of the ones I found most interesting was the reading about James Cameron’s films. One of his films that I absolutely love was Titanic. And it got me thinking about the age old argument of the ending of the film, where Rose tossed this gorgeous necklace into the ocean to sink to the bottom. I’ve heard so many people getting irritated or even angry that she did that instead of leaving the necklace to family. Or even selling it when she first arrived in America to pave her way to a better life. However, to do either of those things would have completely disregarded the entire point of Rose’s transformation.

She went from being an upper class girl from a high born upbringing, to choosing a life of lower class for herself. Cal treated her as an object to possess. She learned more about love in the few days she had with Jack than she had from her mother or her fiancee in her entire life. Which is saying something. She chose to live without the money that this necklace could have given her to not only live as she likely would have with Jack at her side, but proving to herself that she doesn’t need money or status to be truly happy. According to the author of that reading, the necklace is a symbol in and of itself. Of Rose being owned by Cal. The chain of the necklace is fairly short, and on Rose it looks almost like a collar, like he sees her as a possession or pet to be owned. Later, it reflects her love for Jack (her believing him when he says he didn’t steal it), the connection between them because of it (him drawing her wearing it), and then when she doesn’t sell it for money to set herself up in America, she’s freeing herself from being beholden to Cal for any reason. 

She lives a life that is completely, unashamedly her own. She keeps her promise to Jack and continues to live for herself. She does everything that she had ever wanted to do for herself, and then she gets married, has children, and raises them with more love than her mother ever showed her. The fact that she waited until she was on death’s door to toss it back into the ocean over Titanic’s final resting place is a testament that she made it without help from anyone, and I honestly find that the perfect ending to the story. How do you guys feel about the ending of Titanic? Do you love it or do you hate it?

The Strength In Winning

This might be my favorite module so far. Does that make me a feminist? I really love the examples shown because it highlights a common narrative that has existed since I was a little girl and obviously long beforehand. I was able to relate to the examples shown whether it was one of my favorite movies, legally blonde or the examples of the newscasters being a former one myself. It reminded me of the challenges women in that field especially face. One of the most impactful ads I have ever seen is by Nike called "So Win." It debuted during the 2025 SuperBowl. I thought of the third wave of feminism and it's tie into using digital media and the internet for helping spread feminist ideas. This one happened to do it in a very clever way.  

It serves as a contemporary example of challenging traditional gender rules that have been placed throughout history on women's bodies, behaviors and ambitions especially when it comes to the sports world. Through narrative storytelling, the one minute ad both highlights and challenges narratives surrounding being a woman as it ties to being an athlete and finding success. In the reading, Walsh says that patriarchal culture disciplines women's bodies through a narrow beauty standard and highlights appearance and sexualization over strength. Throughout history female athletes have been seen as masculine and aggressive. The ad challenges that concept by focusing on women's bodies as powerful and instead of apologizing for being strong, they lean into it. With phrases like, " you can't be demanding, you can't be relentless, you can't put yourself first - so put yourself first." It leans into many of the things we often hear as women in relationships, work, and daily interactions. As a woman, if you speak up in a meeting, you're seen as being difficult. If you're seen as being confident, that can be mistaken for arrogance. The ad tells the story visually to show the amount of effort and hard work that go into each of their focus areas versus highlighting them as sexual objects. The focus on their bodies is more about the athleticism versus the desire that some media narratives try to create. 

In the reading from Sellnow, it talks about the importance of looking at how media texts expose and resist systems of gendered power. This ad ties into that thought because Nike makes a conscious effort to reframe traits that have been seen as masculine and make them into more of a female expression. It's something that the athletes lean into versus running away from. I can't help but wonder though - does the ad succeed in redefining how we see beauty as strong and sexy and replaces it with a new ideal rather than what we've traditionally been feed through media? 

Even the thought of " winning" is a narrative that extends from being the smartest in a classroom to winning the affections or attention of a man in rom-coms. The concept of being a winner is tied to someone else's approval or value. In the ad, it challenges that to show that women across all different backgrounds, body types and standards can find a universal thread to win for themselves and define what that means for them.  As stated in "Miss-representation" that the media is the message and the messenger and the responsibility that holds for delivering content that shapes our society, I am very happy to see a narrative like this out in the world.

Woman in culture, featuring Barbie

 

Greta Gerwig’s Barbie (2023) uses one of the world’s most famous pop culture icons to explore what it means to be a woman in a society shaped by unrealistic expectations. The film’s power lies in how it addresses the daily contradictions women experience, not just in its humor or visuals.

In the opening scenes, Barbie depicts women in positions of power, but this exaggerated matriarchy mirrors the same rigid system found in real life. Barbies are expected to be confident, flawless, and highly skilled. This shows how pop culture often presents women as 'empowered' only if they meet impossible standards. The film quickly reveals that this version of empowerment leaves little room for flaws, individuality, or creativity, making it feel hollow.

Gloria’s monologue is the film’s most powerful moment, as it highlights the conflicting standards women face: they should be ambitious without being intimidating, confident without being arrogant, and attractive without trying too hard. This speech resonates because it captures the expectations women have absorbed from pop culture and advertising. By highlighting these contradictions, the film focuses on the challenges women face rather than on Barbie’s flaws alone.

 Barbie's transition into the Royal World highlights how gender Norms are shaped by popular culture. She is subjected to scrutiny, objectification, and dismissal, experiences that many women may relate to. These instances demonstrate that power dynamics remain beneath the surface and that respiration is significant in its own right. However, it refrains from depicting Barbie as the helpless victim. Rather, she sees herself in terms of identity and purpose beyond what she's expected to be in today's society.

In the end, Barbie reimagines pop culture as a space that can both harm and heal. While Barbie has often been associated with narrow beauty standards, the film reclaims the character to challenge those ideas. By showing Barbie as imperfect, sensitive, and unsure, the movie suggests that real empowerment comes from being human, not from trying to be perfect.

Through this approach, Barbie demonstrates that pop culture can evolve, transforming a symbol of limitation into one of reflection, resistance, and possibility.

Laugh Tracks: Who Decides What's Funny

Laugh tracks are very simple and can be over looked when watching older sitcoms. They have a great affect on the audience whether they realize it or not. The outburst of laughter instructs the audience on how to respond in addition to jokes. We are supposed to laugh when a character makes a embarrassing or even an insulting joke. Laugh tracks strongly shape how viewers interpret shows like Friends and The Big Bang Theory. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpu3GdlV3w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rzY_yxi_Ak

When laughter follows a moment, it signals that the comment isn’t meant to be taken seriously, making even harsh insults or awkward situations feel harmless. Certain scenes could feel stressful or just wrong without laugh tracks. This eventually has an affect on peoples social interactions when in a public setting, or even in their day to day relationships. 

Laugh tracks have completely disappeared in modern shows today. They instead use silence in shows like The Office, and the way they use that silence is very important. The moment will linger forcing the viewer to sit with discomfort and for them to determine how they feel. It changes the power dynamic, so instead of being told what to laugh at and what not to it makes the audience think. Awkwardness is now known as the message and that it will not be something that will be smoothed over causing that silence to be funny. Laughing tracks are not always bad. They create a shared experience for the viewer, but the problem comes when laughter is used to excuse harmful behavior that shuts down the viewers critical thinking. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXKTWbCmJVw

Question for discussion:

- How does a scene feel different when theres no laugh track?

- Are there jokes you've laughed at that feel uncomfortable once you think about them?

- Do you prefer being guided by laughter or deciding for yourself whats funny?

"She's Too Emotional": Sports Media and Women

 When male athletes get emotional by yelling at a referee or throwing something, it is usually framed as passion and their love for the game. It shows that he is competitive and determined to win. When a female athlete does the same thing, the narrative changes.

"She's out of control"

"She's too emotional"

"She needs to calm down"

This double standard is not accidental, and it is actually rooted in how our culture looks at gender and power. Popular culture does not only reflect inequality, but it actively teaches us what kinds of behavior are acceptable for men and women. 

An example of this can be found in the tennis world. Throughout her career, Serena Williams was often framed as "too emotional", particularly when she challenges officials or expresses frustration on the court. Her anger is very normal given the pressure during elite competition, but the media portrays it as threatening or excessive. The same behavior that labeled Serena as too emotional is always excused and sometimes even celebrated in men's tennis. Serena's body, voice, and dominance disrupt expectations of femininity, and the media response works to discipline that disruption. 

Another example of this was found between Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark. Angel's confidence and celebration was considered as classless and aggressive. I have seen many male athletes do similar if not more aggressive gestures after winning a game and they have never been called those things. They are usually called tough or "hard" for doing such gestures. The message here is consistent: women who are too loud, too proud, or too visible are disciplined through language. The media frames their success as acceptable only if they perform it correctly. 

Instead of asking why women are so emotional, we should be asking why men's emotions are treated so differently. Growing up playing sports and now working in sports, I can confidently say that men are just as emotional when it comes to sports as women, and maybe even more so. So who decided that composure looks masculine? Why is passion celebrated only when it comes from a certain gender? Until these questions are taken seriously, being too emotional will be less of a critique for women and more of a warning: win, but don't disrupt the rules while doing it. 

At what point does “passion” become “too emotional,” and who gets to decide that line?

Think Like a Man, Prepare Like a Woman

There’s an interesting statistic that gets loosely tossed around leadership circles that says men often apply for jobs when they meet 60% of the qualifications, while alternately women tend to apply only when they feel 100% qualified. I’m stuck on this idea right now. This week’s readings and videos have impacted me more than the previous weeks; probably because as a woman, I’ve paid so much more attention this week in media and life with how my sex is viewed, treated and what’s expected when we are in leadership positions.

Once you look for it, it’s everywhere. Male characters in movies, sitcoms, and workplace comedies routinely and consistently step into roles they are completely unprepared (or at least underprepared) for. Their confidence is framed as leadership and their dumb mistakes are treated as part of the journey. As an example, in The Office Michael Scott is always failing upward and clearly not qualified to be a manager, you even see him applying for jobs he’s not qualified for. In Everybody Loves Raymond we see Ray’s ignorance and incompetence as charming and endearing while his wife is taking care of all the parenting, chores, etc.  We expect  men to wing it, fail, and somehow land on their successful feet by the end of the episode or film.

Alternately female characters, get their credentials and accolades only after proving themselves over and over again. They are prepared, organized, strategic and often exhausted by the emotional labor of holding everything together (in that sense art definitely imitates life). Even when these women succeed, it is framed as exceptional more than normal. Elle Woods in Legally Blond had an entire montage of all the areas she was working on to be ready to apply for Harvard Law School, then she’s dismissed and not taken seriously until she again has to outperform expectations with another "working her butt off" montage. In Parks and Rec we watch Leslie Knope over prepared and “on” all the time in order to succeed or advance. This pattern lines up seamlessly with feminist critiques of patriarchy and masculine hegemony. Men are granted legitimacy through confidence while women are required to demonstrate near-perfection ideals in order to be taken seriously. Feminist criticism calls this occluded preferred meaning. On the surface women appear empowered by being smart, accomplished and capable, but the underlying message consistently is that women must overperform to belong to any sort of power structure.

As an improviser, I’ve noticed something pretty useful about myself. I tend to approach opportunities with more of that traditionally “male” psyche. I wing it. I say yes before I’m completely ready. I just trust that I’ll figure it out as I go. That mindset, shaped by years and years and years of improvisation, has absolutely opened doors for me. Doors that I'm sure I would have kept closed if I didn't have the YES AND mindset. I’ve landed opportunities I might have talked myself out of if I waited until I felt perfectly completely qualified. If it scares and excites me, I usually jump at that gut instinct. Traditionally that is distinctly more of a masculine tendency. That realization makes me wonder how much of what we think of “confidence” is actually permission. What would happen if pop culture started to flip the narrative and showed women as “winging it” and succeeding or advancing? If we do it enough, our ideas about leadership and readiness could change an entire generations perspective and mindset. How do we flip the narrative? Let's do this thing! "Let's Go Girls...." 

 

Second Wave Feminist

 

     I, personally have been on the fence with the word feminist and the feminist perspective. According to Sellnow (2010), a feminist is anyone (male or female) whose beliefs and actions challenge hegemony by respecting and valuing women as well as respecting and valuing both men and women who embrace and enact multiple gender styles and sexualities (139). Hegemony (dominant ideology) which is reinforced and reproduced by both women and men-simultaneously empowers men and oppresses women as well as both men and women who do not behave in stereotypically gender appropriate ways (p.139). The feminist perspective focuses on the taken-for-granted as “normal” roles and rules for men and women in society (p. 139). What is causing me to be on the fence is the second wave, and what occurred within the feminist movement itself at that time.

     I feel the first wave appears to benefit women the most. The women who made up the movement got together and stood for something. They wanted change, according to Sellnow (2010), the primary goal of first wave feminism was to secure the right to vote (p. 142). This movement made it possible to start the legal aspects of women getting the right to do something without being tied to their husbands. Even though it appears to be small, it really isn't when it's viewed broadly. 

     The second wave focuses on the goals of equal rights and opportunities for women and men (p. 142). What is surprising about the “equal rights” part is how President Kennedy was working on the Civil Right Act of 1964 prior to his assassination. The Civil Right Act was not only for African Americans, but for all women and men (Kabramson, 2022). However, Kennedy wasn't able to have it pass (2022). Instead, President Johnson, as a memorial for Kennedy, was able to get it to pass and become law. In this aspect, men also played a part in obtaining some rights for women. It wasn't solely the feminist movement. So it begs the question, which event led to women getting “equal rights” or at least the start of it?

     One thing that stands out in my mind about the second wave is how it appears women within the movement oppressed themselves. By oppressed, I'm referring to how some women would call other women anti-feminists if their ideals didn't line up to a perceived definition. For example, if a woman decided to stay home and raise a family, she was considered anti-feminist. Which, in itself goes against what the feminist were wanted to do by challenging hegemony. Instead, gatekeeping was observed and women were marginalized. 

                                     References 

Kabramson. (2022). The Civil Right Act Of 1964. The JFK Library Archives: An Inside Look. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library And Museum. National Archives. Retrieved From https://share.google/2gXXn8cXiimYHMN7x

Sellnow, Deanna D. (2010). The Rhetorical Power Of Popular Culture. Chapter 7: Feminist Perspective. PDF. Retrieved from Canvas. Southern Utah University. 

When Jeans Fit, but the Narrative Doesn't

 

Yeah, I'm tired. As a female there is something incredibly exhausting about how predictable the representation of women in media still is. Even when the environment changes the underlying message never does. The reality is that sex sells, and rather than looking at everything that can make a woman phenomenal (their talents, hobbies, successes, children, relationships, etc.) we're staring at their boobs instead. 

One of the most obvious ways patriarchy shows up is through objectification. As the Feminist Perspective said, women are consistently framed as objects meant to be looked at, evaluated, and consumed, while men are positioned as subjects who act, decide, and control. I don't think this relationship disappears when a woman is truly successful, confident, or seen. Honestly it becomes part of an expectation that her body must still be a part of the performance. Part of the reason why I am utilizing Sydney Sweeney here is the controversy surrounding her willingness to share her... assets with everyone around her. In the image above she is being honored at the 2025 Power of Women even at the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles. I don't feel as though a Children's Hospital Event is the appropriate place to show up in a nude dress... nonetheless men online everywhere praised her willingness to show off. If you were to read the comments on the posts online, the praise was fairly divided, men were ecstatic, and women were not impressed. 

Here's why I have a problem with this kind of advertisement, when women are constantly framed through desirability, it starts to feel natural instead of a planned construction. Over time, it teaches audiences what women are for instead of what they are worth. It clearly assists in the shaping of how women are expected to see themselves. Patriarchy doesn't need to announce itself, it just needs to keep showing us the new normal until we stop asking questions. That's part of the reason that feminist criticism can be so invaluable, it forces us to notice the patterns that we would generally ignore. 

The real question is if women are framed primarily through sexuality, how much room is left for us to exist outside of the limits the patriarchy gives us? Probably not much more than the room left in a pair of good jeans. 

Feminism in Pop Culture

 Feminism in Pop Culture

The topic of women and how women are perceived in Pop Culture is interesting. There are many different perspectives which are interpreted differently in the media. Many believe that a huge part of feminism is women embracing their femininity in its entirety. Many actresses have discussed the embracement of their femininity while playing certain roles. While many play roles that are slightly suggestive without showing any nudity in PG 13 movies and sometimes there are exceptions in R rated movies.

Many women actresses are involved in movies and shows that display highly sexual and explicit conversations. Many of which have a special network subscription for them such as HBO, Showtime, and Netflix because of their explicit contents. Sex and the City was a show that monumented into Pop Culture history the embracement of femininity. Women were discussing open to talking about women issues related to their seductive nature rather than their submissive natures such as being a homemaker and stay at home wife.

There are even more recent similar shows such as Girls and Euphoria. Both shows are more recent and discuss social issues especially dealing with their individual seductiveness as they mature throughout the show. During interviews certain members of the Euphoria cast were asked if they felt their character and them were too explicit in their scenes. She explained that she did not think so, and she embraced it.  

Some argue that a women cannot play a strong role, for example Scarlett Johansson in the Avengers as Black Widow. Her character is a beautiful woman that embraces her femininity by being provocatively seductive. However, she is also known for her fighting skills as she became an addition to the Avengers team. Conversely, the character from the Hunger Games movies, Katniss, was initially shown as a strong female role. Her character did not care to express femininity, but rather exhibit her strength toward her opponents. Her mentors guided her to show her femininity while working together with her partner Peeta to gain sponsorships.

I think the consistent theme of feminism will continue to be shown in different ways throughout Pop Culture. It is show on both ends in movies and television shows whether that is women embracing their freedoms to explore corporate office life, or homemaking stay at home suburban life as a wife and mother. There are many depictions of these scenarios that show the pros and cons of both. 

As femininity remains a common topic of conversation in Pop Culture, what related themes do you think should be further explored?

The Little Folk Singer with a Big Agenda: Third Wave Feminism and Ani DiFranco

 

I grew up just 14 miles from Seneca Falls, New York, the home of the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention, and the place commonly known as the “birthplace of women’s rights,” but it wasn’t first wave suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott or Susan B. Anthony that forced me to challenge the gender norms I’d learned from television and magazines. That inspiration came in the form of a 5’2”, 100- pound folk singer named Ani DiFranco.

With three older brothers, my childhood was spent watching Masters of the Universe, NFL games and The Dukes of Hazzard, thumbing through car magazines and playing with miniature plastic Army figures, but it wasn’t until I attended my first of dozens of DiFranco’s concerts that I started to question why She-Ra had to fight evil in a skimpy skirt and high-heeled boots, why the cheerleaders on the sideline of the Cowboys’ games were never called athletes, what conflicting climate must have existed in Hazzard County for Bo and Luke Duke to wear long-sleeved, button-up shirts and jeans while Daisy only wore cut-off shorts, why all convertibles came with a blond-haired, blue-eyed, bikini-clad hood ornament or why there were no female Army figures.

    A posterchild of third wave feminism, DiFranco raged against the patriarchy with songs like “Not a Pretty Girl,” whose lyrics mocked the status quo stereotypes of women perpetuated by popular culture:

I am not a pretty girl, that is not what I do

I ain’t no damsel in distress, and I don’t need to be rescued

So put me down, punk. Wouldn’t you prefer a maiden fair, isn’t there   a kitten stuck up a tree somewhere?

    DiFranco didn’t just champion common third wave standpoints like sexual freedom, body image, gender roles, the intersection of race and gender, the me-too movement and the social and economic power of women, she modeled them. She turned down multi-million-dollar record deals from male-dominated labels and started her own, Righteous Babe Records. She challenged the beauty norms cultivated by music video vixens by shaving her head and performing in combat boots instead of high heels and she refused to label her sexuality despite constant speculation from fans and the media.

    Thirty years have passed since I first discovered DiFranco’s music and became a more critical thinker with respect to gender roles, and in that time, the third and fourth waves have helped usher in two female presidential candidates, a female Speaker of the House, the country’s first female vice president, the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act and marginal improvements in the pay gap between men and women. During that time; however, we have also seen the growth of social media, where women constantly reinforce beauty norms with make-up tutorials and outfit-of-the-day videos; where we are bombarded with ads for GLP-1 medications and where academic achievements take a backseat to rush week festivities. While the fourth wave tackles these issues through digital activism, I can’t help but wonder what the fifth wave will bring, and I hope it brings it soon.

 

Helping or Hurting?

 What exactly is feminism? This may seem like an easy answer; after all, a definition is everywhere. The problem is, a definition is everywhere. It is widely acknowledged that there is a myriad of definitions and concepts related to feminism. It is even a point of pride as it is said to demonstrate the diverse aspects of feminism and the inclusive nature that it embodies. But many of these perspectives are metaphysical, which in and of itself can be difficult to grasp. When combined with multiple, sometimes conflicting, metaphysical perspectives, it creates a lack of focus and distorts the purpose behind feminism as a whole. With so many definitions and perspectives, one must ask, does this help or hurt the feminist cause?  

    This is a topic that extends beyond a short blog. For one, simply listing the various types of feminist studies requires a dedicated book chapter. But fully addressing the issue involves examining multiple areas of the heavily branched feminist movement on both analytical and synoptical levels. But to keep within appropriate lengths, this short study will use the three waves of feminism to address a pattern that begins to emerge.

    Feminism is traditionally categorized into three historic waves. When these waves are viewed as a whole, a pattern emerges with a possible correlation between clear, tangible definitions and successful application. The clearer and more pragmatic the definition and goals are, the more likely they are to succeed in their quest. To encapsulate the range of feminist perspectives, it is best to quote Susan K. Foss in summing up feminism. She says, "Feminists are united by a broadening of the scope of the term feminism to include the effort to eliminate relations of domination not just for women but for all people."

    The first wave of feminism started in the middle of the nineteenth century through 1920. It primarily focused on women's right to vote. This wave is characterized by specific tangible goals that sought legal rights and representation. The purpose was clearly defined, and underlying its pursuit were ideologies that were understandable, well-defined, pragmatic, and measurable. While being oppositional to the current culture, they were not isolated in opposition for their own benefit. They benefited all of society by removing the limits placed on women, not adding limits to others. And what happened is that the first wave of feminism achieved the goals it set out to accomplish. 

    The second wave of feminism, credited to Betty Friedman, is characterized by a mixture of tangible legal and cultural shifts and intangible ideologies.  The tangible elements included women's equality in the workplace, pay, reproductive freedom, and legal achievements such as Title IX. These are measurable elements with specific purposes. The intangible ideologies include questioning motherhood, traditional family structures, patriarchal systems, capitalism, glass ceilings, etc. It focused on oppression not as physical suffering but as a constraining force through laws, social norms, and institutions. The slogan, "the personal is the political," was coined during this wave. While some of the specific goals were achieved during this wave, many argue that others, such as true equality in the workplace, despite legal representation, have not been achieved. Most of the unattained goals are metaphysical in nature with no clear measurement of success. 

    Built on the achievements of the second wave, the third wave of feminism dates to the 1980s onward and is the least tangible of the waves. It focuses on metaphysical constructs in which definitions are challenged, self-identity is redefined through personal experiences, unified concepts are rejected, and the identification of oppression is sought. It builds an ideological framework that guides cultural talking points, academic literature, and political debates. But unlike the first and second waves, it is an obscure wave, with no clear definition or tangible milestone by which to establish progress. Instead, it leans on identifying oppression and opposing traditional norms, which cannot be measured but are subject to personal identification. Further, it has branched feminism into personal experiences, which allows for a nearly limitless number of perspectives and definitions. For instance, it is commonly accepted that a teacher controls a group of students and that a man can teach a class with women in it. But if someone were to challenge this accepted norm, should it not also be accepted since it is based on personal experience, challenging cultural norms, and identifying oppression? The third wave of feminism lacks a defining purpose. And while there may be small successes within a specific area of feminism, the third wave of feminism does not measure success like the first and second waves. So, how does culture know if progress is being made? In order to achieve a goal, the goal must first be defined. A race with no ending is not a race. 

    As we have seen, the progressive waves of feminism have moved from a well-defined pragmatic purpose to an obscure, undefined intangible idea. Is it possible that by obscuring the purpose and incorporating limitless numbers of perspectives and definitions, while creating unmeasurable goals, that third wave feminist movement is causing more harm than good?