Fashion & feminism

Every chick flick movie is entitled to at least one montage sequence that shows the protagonist going through a “makeover” that usually consists of extensive shopping and beauty treatments. Everyone goes shopping, whether male of female but it’s known universally that women shop for fun, and sometimes, they consider shopping a stress reliever.

So what is it that makes women enjoy shopping? Is it the pleasure of buying clothes that will change how we look? Or is it the pleasure of just spending money? If you ask me, for a long time ago, shopping has turned from a process of attaining essential needs to a process that reinforces what Hilary Rander calls in her book, autonomous individualism. In her book Neo-Feminist Cinema, Rander attributes the autonomous individual to the woman who apprehends her pleasure for herself and whose health can be measured by the body’s capacity to experience itself as pleasurable. So shopping is now a way of proving one’s independence.

So, Do the female representations in media effect our own perception of power and being a feminist? Well, being surrounded, or suffocated, by the media that advocates for consumerism played a role in turning most women into neo-feminists. According to Rander, Neo-feminism means, “control over one’s body/face/self, accomplished through the right acquisitions can maximize one’s value at both work and home.” Although we might not be aware of it, we shop for the pleasure of having the power to choose what we want and how we look.

Although being a shopaholic in some way contradicts with one of many things that feminism stands for, that is liberating women from being sexualized in media, it seems that Neo-feminism has changed this view. Neo-feminism encourages consumerism and individualism, while on the other hand; feminism had always advocated for female solidarity and independence. So it is still possible to be a feminist and a shopaholic? 

Feminism phobia

It seems that most of my generation is torn between what feminism is and what people perceive it to be. “There is a very warped view of feminism because the movement has been hijacked by radical activists who soak up all the media attention. They damage feminism the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church hurts Christianity, or Islamic extremists damage the reputation of Islam. Understand that, though there are lots of horrid, hateful women that call themselves soldiers of feminism, the core of the movement is not what they say it is, and will never be” said one of my male friends while expressing his opinion about feminism.

Feminism has been portrayed in movies through the representation of powerful, smart women who are capable of defeating “evil” male figures. This representation made me assume for a long time that feminism truly stands for strong, independent women. The female characters in these movies could be described by two definitions: The Bond girl or the Single girl. According to Hilary Radner in her book Neo-Feminist Cinema, “The Bond Girl represents a change in the women’s position…the single girl, unlike the Bond girl, was not by nature exceptional. Rather, she was an ordinary girl who strove successfully to become exceptional.” Although problematic to some extent, those representations of women in movies reflect a side of feminism that does not seem to form a big problem considering that it is breaking gender stereotypes. So what is the problem with feminism?

In my opinion the problem stimulated from the fact that feminism now encourages the notion of gaining power through appearance and consumption. This is what Radner defined in her book as neo-feminism. According to Radner, “Neo-feminism refers to the tendency in feminine culture to evoke choice and the development of individual agency as the defining tenets of feminine identity.” An example of such form of feminism is presented in movies such as Sex and the City 2. The representation of women in such movies emphasize the importance of their appearance and the power they have through making the right decision in purchasing products (mostly fashion brands). If feminism was only concerned with empowering women and achieving equality, then why is popular culture using feminist movements to advocate for passivity through product consumption?

What we're left with are two forms of feminism: The tomboyish representation of women that is defined as the Bond girl or Single girl, and the autonomous female that has control over her appearance and is defined by the neo-feminism movement. The question is, does either of them represent what feminism really stands for?