by

NOTE: In the preface of her work Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics, Lisa Lowe notes that her work is “not an orthodoxy to be followed”, but rather a forum to generate discussion “in order to open a space in which others, perhaps finding worthy gaps, errors, or elisions, will make use of and build on”. That, likewise, is all I am trying to do here. I am not prescribing my views, but merely sharing them with the hopes expanding conversations already begun.

The rhetoric of first-wave feminism, often focused on the political rights of women and sought to give women agency in the political sphere with arguments that were similar to those used in the abolitionist movements (which is no coincidence given that the abolitionist movement was frequently spearheaded by women). Though this brand of feminism is still critical in places like Saudi Arabia where women have not been allowed to vote (the right was recently granted recognized by ‘King’ Abdullah), but in the west, feminist dialogues often center on new issues centered on the social treatment of women. This ranges from work-place equality, to prescribed body expectations, to harassment, domestic abuse, rape, and opportunities in both educational and professional spheres. Some of this dialogue is inclusive, and others are more accusatory, and with media outlets and internet sites seeking to increase readership, viewership, and traffic, it is often the more polarizing comments that get air time. The result is that many mistakenly view ‘feminism’ as an antagonist and an exclusive dialogue that seeks only to point fingers. Nothing can be further from the truth, of course, but as feminists (myself included) seek to enlist a larger audience, which the movement necessitates, we need to be conscious of facilitating an inclusive dialogue. The ‘New Feminism’, then, is a brand of feminism that seek to avoid finger pointing and focuses on solutions delivered with an inclusive rhetoric. This might sound difficult, but those working on ‘Madison Avenue’ (and I speak figuratively of advertising in general) have offered us a template with a series of advertisement offered by Verizon™, Always™, and Under Armour®.

One of the best examples of New Feminism is the ‘Inspire Her Mind’ commercial (see above) from Verizon™. The aim of the commercial is to encourage parents to foster the curiosity of their sons and daughters alike, and not to project their own gender stereotypes onto their children. It is like a contemporary version of Virginia Woolf’s hypothetical narrative about Shakespeare’s sister featured in A Room Of One’s Own, where the potential for genius would have been present for Shakespeare’s sister as well, but we would have never known because she would not have been encouraged to write as Shakespeare did. The beauty of the commercial isn’t only the message, but its inclusive nature. It is both the voice of the mother and the father that offer discouragement and promote gender stereotypes, not just the male voice. There is no finger pointing at the male figure. We see a young girl named Samantha counting stone, and in that action we see a future mathematician, but this scene is sandwiched by her mother’s voice, first asking “Who’s my pretty girl”, then instructing “Sammy sweetie, don’t get your dress dirty”. We see the mother projecting a preoccupation with appearance in place of curiosity. Likewise, when Samantha is creating a model of the solar system, we see a future astrophysicist, but her mother tells her the project has gone too far. It is the maternal figure who is discouraging the curiosity. Her father likewise offers opposition. We see Samantha as a future marine biologist on the beach as she explore a starfish, but her father says “Sammy, honey, you don’t want to mess with that”. Just as the mother uses the term ‘sweetie’, the father also uses a term of endearment rather than her name, and likewise subdues her curiosity. When Samantha is helping her older brother drill a rocket ship, we see a future engineer, but her father tells her to give the drill to her brother. This is an especially telling scene because we see an ally in the brother. He has not yet learned that his sister is not supposed to share this interest in building: he is taught it by his parents. The commercial ends with Samantha noticing a science fair poster behind glass, and rather than take interest in it, she uses the glass as a mirror with which to apply lip balm. Over this shot, we see some statics: “66% of 4 grade girls say they like science and math. But only 18% of all college engineering majors are females”. As the statistics appear on the screen, a new voice comes on, saying “Our words can have a huge impact. Isn’t it time we told her she’s pretty brilliant too?” The key to the success of this dialogue is the inclusivity the commercial offers (though the Factual Feminist has some legitimate concerns about the commercial). The voice says “our” words, not “his” words. There is no accusation. It says “we” need to tell her she’s brilliant, not “he” needs to tell her. This is a shared responsibility. It does not point a finger or frame men as exclusively being a fault. It identifies the systematic nature of gender stereotypes and encourages everybody to recognize them and not place limits on their children.

Always™ has also opted to use their advertising dollars to promote gender equality in their commercial ‘Throw Like A Girl’ (see above). The commercial is a social experiment of sorts that explore the language of oppression. The participants are given various instructions: run like a girl, fight like a girl, and throw like a girl. Each of the participants are told to do the first thing that comes into their mind. The results are easily anticipated. Each participant runs, fights and throws in a fashion that can be most kindly described as ineffective. The group, though, is not made up of men exclusively. It is comprised of boy, men and women, and all of them indulge in the same mocking behaviour. Then a number of young girls are brought in and given the same instruction. Each of them runs, fights and throws in a manner that would be expected if the words ‘like a girl’ weren’t included in the instruction. In the ‘debriefing’, the initial participants are not chastised for their behaviour, but rather asked why they did what they did, and are then asked to explain what those actions mean. One boy is asked: “Do you think you just insulted your sister?” He says no, that he insulted girls, but the question is meant to ask him to consider all girls as somebody’s sister, encouraging him to give all women the same consideration he would give his sister. They participants are then asked to describe how these words would impact young girls. This process encourages people to think. It does not instruct, but asks us to consider the impact of our words and how they facilitate a language of oppression. And the participants are not all men, but rather are men, women and boys, which demonstrates how everybody, not just one gender/sex, promotes these stereotypes and how we are all responsible for changing the way these words are used. The timing of this commercial could not have been better either, considering that Mo’ne Davis, a 13-year-old girl, has just recently competed against her male counterparts in the Little League World Series and was recognized for her accomplishments on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

‘I Will What I Want’ (see above) is another recent commercial, this one from Under Armour™, that likewise challenges prescriptions that are projected onto women. The commercial shows professional ballet dancer Misty Copeland as she practices whilst the sound track features the voice of a young girl reading a rejection letter Copeland received when applying to a ballet school in her youth. In the letter, she is told that her “feet, Achilles tendon, turnout, torso length, and bust” amounts to “the wrong body for ballet”, and is told that she is also too old, being thirteen years of age. Once the rejection letter is finished, the shot moves to Copeland performing on the stage, stating her position with the American Ballet Theatre™. The video serves as an empowering narrative for women as Copeland ignores the prescribed body image that others project onto her and defines herself on her own terms (there are also barriers based on class and perceived race). The prescriptions aren’t attributed to any one person, or any one gender/sex, but rather are attributed to an anonymous institution. The narrative at once teaches everybody to not blindly accept prescriptions by demonstrating how flawed such prescriptions can be. Again, this narrative does not point fingers, it merely shares an inspiring story that encourage everybody, male or female, to relate and empathize. It encourages people to think, and so fosters an inclusive dialogue.

Videos that rely on accusatory and antagonistic rhetoric remain popular though. Buzzfeed Yellow, which has actually put out a lot of great videos that challenge stereo types, recently produced a video titled ‘If Geek Girls Acted Like Geek Guys’ (see above). The video is mildly humourous, and does raise some questions, and does succeed in challenging men to consider how they speak to women within ‘Geek Culture’. The video, though, is overtly antagonistic. The video suggests that there presentation is the way ‘Geek Guys’ talk, but does not accurately represent how all ‘Geek Guys’ talk to women (and please read this before rolling your eyes and dismissing this as ‘Not All Men’ rhetoric). The problem is that many men in Geek culture make an honest effort to be respectful of women, so to lump them together with those who don’t creates antagonism and discourages allies from relating and participating in the conversation and invites contributions from allies that will inevitable derail the conversation and turn it into a ‘not all men’ defense. The video also has limits in terms of its failure to understand how ‘Geek Guys’ talk to other ‘Geek Guys’. When a ‘Geek Guy’ meets a ‘Geek Guy’ he doesn’t know, it is not uncommon for one of both to engage in a pissing contest and establish who the bigger ‘Geek’ is. Just as the Buzzfeed video has the ‘Geek Girl’ recommending Archie comics, a ‘Geek Guy’ might suggest another ‘Geek Guy’ only reads Superman and Batman comics, as opposed to more obscure titles. Asking how one got into comics is also common, regardless of gender, and it is also common for one ‘Geek Guy’ to suggest that another ‘Geek Guy’ only knows the ‘movies’ and not the comic books themselves. There is no doubt issues with sexism in Geek culture, but the video is simply not an accurate representation of how most men in the subculture act. I, for instance, have never asked a ‘Geek Girl’ to show me her cosplay pictures, though several friends have volunteered to show me their cosplay. I do not doubt that this happens, but I don’t believe it is an accurate representation how the majority of ‘Geek Guys’ act. I would not dictate how women should express themselves about issues they deal with, but it is important to consider the effect that such videos will have. This is of course satire, so it needs to be put into context, but the video is ultimately polarizing and accusatory and though it may garner a few laughs, one needs to consider whether or not it will do more harm than good in terms of generating productive conversations.

This polarizing language also occurs when people try to contribute to solutions. Four students from North Carolina State University have recently introduced a prototype nail polish that can detect the presence of date-rape drugs in alcohol. Great news, right? Not according to Tracey Vitchers of Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER). She states that “we need to think critically about why we keep placing the responsibility for preventing sexual assault on young women”, whilst ThinkProgress says that encouraging women to wear “anti-rape nail polish … actually reinforces a pervasive rape culture in our society”. Talking about shitting in your Shreddies. These are reactionary responses that rely on polemic troupes. This kind of logic implies that preventative measures that treat a symptom are actually the cause, which is akin to telling people that teaching defensive driving and buying car insurance contributes to ‘bad-driving culture’, or that buying a fire extinguisher, a fire alarm and fire insurance is promoting ‘fire culture’. Nobody asks why it is the responsibility of the fire’s victim to protect themselves. It is always best to address the root cause, but to suggest people who are trying to alleviate the symptoms are part of the problem actually facilitates the problem by discouraging people from helping. Rebecca Nagle bemoans that “The problem isn’t that women don’t know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place”. Would Nagle rather the product not be on the market place and make it easier for rapists to poison their victims? Yes, there is a root cause and yes, it is better to address that, but Nagle doesn’t offer a solution to the root cause, she only criticizes those trying to alleviate the symptoms, and I’ve always been taught that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. The bottom line is, you can turn a river around and make it run uphill. Nagle and others like her also fail to see is that having items like this on the market does change the culture. In concert with education and legislation, tools like these help to address the issue of rape. Campuses across North America makes efforts to raise awareness about rape, while the government has anti-rape legislation in place. To suggest that including defensive measures are part of the education process is to promote rape is akin to saying that having locks on our doors encourages people to break in to houses and makes the victims responsible. Yes, we shouldn’t have to lock our doors, but the bottom line is that there are people who don’t share the values of society. If one is going to be so busy arguing the principle of the matter that they can’t contribute to the practical solution, they will actually be facilitating the problem. The antagonistic rhetoric, that attacks people who are trying to help solve the problem is simply not going to contribute to solution. An inclusive rhetoric in line with the New Feminism would be far more productive.

This is not meant to prescribe how feminist should frame their arguments. As a person who identifies as a feminist, I would not want somebody else telling me how to frame my concerns, but at the same time, it is important to be aware of how to best facilitate productive conversations. Inclusive conversations that rely on reasoned and logical arguments based on facts are simply more productive than antagonistic arguments that rely on accusatory rhetoric, generalizations, and polemic accusations. This is not to say that hyperbole and satire cannot be used, but in watching a video like ‘If Geek Girls Acted Like Geek Guys’ alongside videos likes ‘Throw Like A Girl’, ‘Inspire Her Mind’, and ‘I Will What I Want’, it is overtly clear which rhetoric is most effective. Conversations that encourage people to think, and consider the impact of their actions is far more effective than finger pointing. Ultimately, the feminist movement needs a variety of voices and perspectives, as there is no single perspective that reflects the needs and concerns of all women, but in order reach a broader audience and enlist a wider group of supporters, feminist dialogues should employ inclusive, constructive, and proactive rhetoric, not polarizing accusations and generalizations.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to get updates on my latest posts by follow me on Twitter @JasonJohnHorn. Be sure to ‘like’, share and leave a comment, and try to n constructive.