developing-feminist07-blog

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Self-Reflection

To say the least, this has been a wonderful journey to me. As mentioned before, my only prior knowledge to feminism was merely hearing the word itself. I had no idea about any of the concepts behind feminism, nonetheless what the word itself meant. This journey has definitely challenged me quite a bit as it required thinking I have never done before, and introduced all sorts of new and nuanced definitions. I am very thankful for this journey. It has provided much time for self-reflection and thought. So, I guess the question remains: do I identify as a feminist?

Great question. To be honest, I am not sure. My response to the question I presented above is:  do you have to identify as a feminist to genuinely and truly believe and recognize the numerous barriers that have prevented women from realizing fair representation and fair pay? If, in order to believe this, I must identify as feminist, I guess I will hesitantly identify this way. However, if I can believe those things, but not identify as a feminist, I might do that instead.

Here is what I believe and know to be true. Women are under-represented in, well almost everything. This class has shown the numerous social barriers facing women at pretty much at every point in society that have caused them to conform to certain, unfair, standards. Women are insanely underpaid for work they do, hence the wage gap proves to be an immense challenge going forward. Additionally, women of color and the LGBTQ community is even more under-represented that white women. The societal barriers facing these groups are even more challenging than what white women face. Intersectionality is a very important concept that needs to be more prevalent in society. In my heart, I genuinely believe these things to be true. 

Here are my problems with feminism. I implied this throughout my blog, but wow, feminist scholars really put the word critical in critical studies. I was disappointed at how much critique scholars give to feminist icons of all color. Icons seemed to only be torn apart, rather than lifted up for what they were doing. Of course, this could have been due to the selection of articles we read, but nonetheless this was disappointing. I understand in theory that there will be always something wrong with someone, no one is perfect. To me, it sounds like some feminist scholars are chasing a utopia and waiting for someone perfect to come along, which may never happen. These ideals of standards of perfection feminist scholars are holding feminist icons to just do not seem reasonable. I would have rather seen icons supported for the role they are playing in feminism. The insanely deep level of scrutiny and analysis into icons actions just does not seem warranted, at least to me.

Additionally, there are some generally accepted cornerstones in feminist ideology that just go against who I am at the core. I am hesitant to adopt ideology and theory that teaches certain things I fundamentally disagree with. I ask to be respected for this.

These are my thoughts, at this point in my life. This journey has been fun, challenging and rewarding at the same time. I am very thankful for this journey. Despite being hesitant to identify as a feminist, I am encouraged, more than ever, to begin my career and look for ways in which I can do my part in removing the obvious social barriers impacting women. I believe I can ultimately make a small difference. I believe at the core of who I am the things I mentioned earlier to be true. I will work to do my part in correcting these things as I progress throughout my life.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

The “It” Factor

In 2004, Joseph Roach wrote an article about “it”. You know? It? We all know what “it” looks like, we all know who has “it”. Little bit confused? Ya, I was too. In his article, Roach spent much time using extended metaphors and extremely dense sentence structure to explain this intangible quality. I am definitely not downplaying the success of this most likely extremely successful and highly scholarly article, but I do not believe people who may be reading this blog will be extremely interested in me attempting to explain all of Roach’s extended metaphors about “It”. In the paragraphs that follow, I will summarize Roach’s main points he wrote about in the article and then apply this scholarly article to both the stock market and popular culture.

By “It”, Roach means “the easily perceived but hard-to-define quality possessed by abnormally interesting people” (p.1). Roach then makes a distinction between talent and It. Roach states “talent may draw a crowd, but it alone will not hold one for long unless the performance also has It” (p.1). Roach explains this point by saying one hundred different people can audition for a role, but when all of a sudden, all the attention is on one person, well, this person is the one who has It. A good way of understanding It, is by citing some of It’s synonyms, such as “charm, charisma and presence” (p. 2).  In order for a person to truly possess It, Roach states that “he or she must be entirely unselfconscious and full of self-confidence, indifferent to the effect he or she is producing, and uninfluenced by others” (p.4). Essentially, what I got from the reading is that It is extremely hard to define, but in order for one to have It, they must be self-confident, interesting, uninfluenced by others, and just have some charisma.

Let’s apply this concept to something more interesting – the stock market! Who has It? I think many of us might immediately jump to Amazon. I mean, if we had all invested in Amazon when it started, I think many of us would not be in school or working right now, and I definitely would not be doing this blog! This has to be “It”, right?! But wait, a company is not a real person, a company cannot have self-confidence, charisma, or be uninfluenced by others. Perhaps the It can be found in Amazon’s financials. But wait, it took Amazon a decade and a half to earn its first net profit in 2001. Further, even throughout the last decade Amazon can still be seen reporting a net loss for the year. Well, okay, this is net profit, we all know that does not mean much. Maybe the It factor can be found in key financial ratios. See the Report from Morningstar below. Obviously the It factor does not lay in these ratios.

So what is Amazon’s It?! Somehow, Amazon has positioned themselves inside of investors minds as constantly investing in the future and creating a convenience for consumers that has never been seen before. How has this idea been cemented into our minds? I believe the It factor of Amazon as a company and fantastic investment opportunity can be tied back to one man – the CEO. Jeff Bezos has been the CEO of Amazon since the company started in 1996. Bezos, along with other C-Suite executives, seem to provide Amazon all of the It factor. What else could it be? We just saw it is not the financial position of the company. If it is true that Bezos is behind the It factor of Amazon, we must assume that his personal actions impact the company. Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, recently saw his personal life as the title of many popular culture texts. On January 11 of this year, it was revealed that Bezos had been having an affair with throughout his marriage. Amazon’s stock then fell by over 3% in the following days. Bezos himself, however, is in a much worse position as this divorce is expected to cost him almost $150 billion. Roach said in his article, “It is rare and expensive to own” (p. 14). Well, Bezos lead Amazon to definitely have It, and now he is seeing firsthand how expensive It was. I think that this goes to show that the It factor in many large corporations can be related to the people running the company since these people can posses the traits Roach talked about, while financials and a company itself are not capable of having these.

Despite such a dense and complex article, Roach really has me thinking! There is no way I can stop this blog now without talking Game of Thrones, a series that has consumed more of my life that I would like to admit. I’ll put it simply, GAME OF THRONES HAS IT! We will talk about the shortcomings of the show later, but let’s just take a second and think about how the show promotes feminism. For those of you that have watched, how many badass women stand up to men in the show and send an amazing message to women? Brienna of Tarth, Sansa Stark and of course Daenerys Targaryen, the Mother of freaking Dragons! To me, Daenerys definitely has It and is by far my favorite character. Joanna C. Valente, had this to say about Daenerys: “we saw the true birth of a feminist and advocate for women”. I can explain what Daenerys has done, but I love Valente’s words: “Not only did she rise from being an unwilling wife to the leader of a nomadic warrior group, to being the leader of said group and a whole ton of men who gladly laid down their life to serve in her army, but she's the also the goddamn mother to three nearly full-grown DRAGONS. If you need more proof that this girl is badass, ya crazy.” 

Emilia Clarke, who plays the character of Daenerys Targaryen, is a self-proclaimed feminist. However, as Roach said “It is rare and expensive to own” (p. 14). Instead of a monetary expense, such as Bezos, Clarke has found that having It has led to many, and highly justified, attacks about what the show actually portrays. For those that have seen Game of Thrones, we all know how women are almost always portrayed as sex objects. Clarke objected by saying “So it pains me to hear people taking Thrones out of context with anti-feminist spin — because you can’t do that about this show. It shows the range that happens to women, and ultimately shows women are not only equal, but have a lot of strength.” An important nuance to this quote is what is missing, Clarke merely says “feminism”. Everyone I had previously mentioned as being a badass in Game of Thrones all had one thing in common – being white. Valente stated that in regards to Game of Thrones, “it is a diss to inclusive feminism...when it comes to race and class, [Daenerys] is ignorant”. I could go on and on about talking about feminism and intersectionality within Game of Thrones, but I better stop, this one is already getting a bit lengthy.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Madonna

I’m so excited about It, I just can’t stop talking about it. It is obvious that Madonna is yet another person that has It. In The Evolution of Madonna’s Feminist Message, by All that’s interesting, explores Madonna’s rise to complete stardom. The article states “costumed in crucifixes and layers of lace, Madonna bounced onto the world stage in 1983”. By releasing many different songs and albums, “once [Madonna] held them and other record buyers in the palm of her hand, she crafted messages of empowerment”. The article mentions many different music videos Madonna released that all had its own empowerment message. Take for example, Papa Don’t Preach, which was about a pregnant girl making up her mind to keep her baby despite cultural norms about what she should do. Madonna has taken on many controversial issues head on by simply just being herself. In many music videos, Madonna takes on many gender expectations that society implies by showing her own self-confidence. This self-confidence, according to Roach, is a trait that helps her posses It.

Just as every other person examined so far that has It, Madonna saw how expensive this could be to own. While taking on racism in the music video Like A Prayer, one of Madonna’s biggest sponsors, Pepsi, released her since Pepsi saw this to be too controversial. Additionally, Justify My Love “was banned from MTV for being too sexually explicit”. Take a look below:

Despite being banned from MTV, many people came to Madonna’s defense. For example, Camille Paglia of the New York Times wrote “Madonna is the true Feminist”. Paglia continued to say “She shows girls how to be attractive, sensual, energetic, ambitious, aggressive and funny – all at the same time”. This music video shows Madonna’s self-confidence and her figure being hyper sexualized. Additionally, this music video is highly provocative. But is being provocative a good thing? It appears to be so. Through this music video, and many others, Madonna was able to get people talking about so many unpopular and hard to talk about issues including sexuality, racism and abortion. Additionally, by simply being banned from MTV, Madonna made her fans want to see her material even more.

As All That’s Interesting wrote “Madonna continued to push the sexual envelope and encouraged women to embrace their sexuality, and perhaps more importantly, openly express it”. However, All That’s Interesting continued by saying “Madonna may have finally pushed public tolerance to its limits when she published her ‘SEX’ book”. To say the least, this book was provocative. But what was Madonna trying to say? According to Tamara Lynch, who wrote Madonna Is Down With the Swirl, “it wasn’t the sex that grappled me, it was the interracial sex” (p. 76).  Lynch’s article gives us a great idea about the social barriers that this book helped contributing in breaking down. For example, Lynch said Madonna “shouldn’t be kissing a black man” (p. 77). Or put differently, whites and blacks should not be having any sort of sexual relationships. Why? Um, not sure, I guess its just the way it has always been and no one had the courage to question this until Madonna’s provocative book. Again, being provocative is good! This book eventually inspired Lynch to ask out a white guy and break socially constructed barriers. Lynch was so excited! She said “I didn’t have to live by anyone’s rules but my own” and that “no longer was I invisible or trying to blend in” (p. 80). Thanks to Madonna for being provocative, Lynch had courage to break down barriers. If I had to guess, Lynch’s article is just one example of many.

To say Madonna has left a legacy is truly an understatement. What she did for popular culture is insane. Even to this day, Madonna is influencing popular culture stars. Take for example this tweet from Ariana Grande.

What was Ariana talking about? It was referring to Ariana’s music video God Is a Woman, where Madonna’s voice briefly appeared while reading a Bible verse. While Madonna has always taught something along the lines of whats right is what feels right, Ariana continues this. In God Is a Women, Ariana essentially talks about sexual liberation. However, what about the religious implications of this music video? Arwa Mahdawi states that the verse read by Madonna is Ezekiel 25:17. Further, throughout the video Ariana shows religious practices such as going to confession. Mahdawi states “referring to the Christian God in the female rather than male terms has long been considered by many to be borderline blasphemous”. Honestly, by taking the title of the song literally, if by viewing God as a woman helps people achieve a stronger faith, that’s awesome! I am more than fine with that. However, what I find don’t love is Ariana’s references throughout the song essentially comparing a sexual experience to a religious experience. Oh well, this song nonetheless has a very good feministic message.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Madonna’s Sexual Power

We saw how Madonna had an influence on Ariana Grande, but Madonna influenced so many others. The It factor of Madonna inspired countless people. Specifically, Gloria Feldt wrote how Madonna Speaks Sexual Truth to Power. In her article, Feldt states “Fess up ladies. Is there anyone among us who has not used the power of her sexuality to get something she’s wanted?” (p. 81). Long story short, Feldt shows the immense power sex can have. Feldt shows how the power of sex has been suppressed for so long since there has been “no sex education – no one even said the word “sex” aloud in polite company” (p. 81). Not only had society suppressed sexual power, but society also has worked in many ways to suppress women. For example, Feldt writes about how there were “Help Wanted: Female ads that kept me from applying to higher-paying “men’s” jobs”(p. 82). Further, Feldt said how she “couldn’t even get a credit card without a man’s co-signature” (p. 82). Later Feldt said how “sex and sexual power played a central role in my newfound activism” and explained many cultural archetypes that society had placed on women which included the whore, clueless incompetent, the virgin, and many others (p. 83). Feldt said that “Madonna challenged every one of those female archetypes” through her songs and music videos (p. 84). In the Like a Virgin music video Feldt describes how Madonna exposed the sexual hypocrisy of society by showing that “sex is beautiful and fun; love the one you’re with, and make damn sure you get your fair share of pleasure while you’re at it”. Feldt said that Madonna had inspired her to break barriers “that had enslaved women for millennia” (p. 85).

Feldt did a fantastic job of showing how Madonna inspired women. It is no doubt in my mind that women have been suppressed socially in so many different ways. That is a fact, and proven, I mean just look at the wage gap that still exists! However, Feldt shows how women responded to this social suppression by overcoming sexual suppression, with Madonna serving as the main catalyst. Look this is great and all, but, I am not a woman, so I guess I really don’t have much of a say. It’s your body, do as you please. But religiously, I just cannot go along with this. Madonna did a great job of teaching its right if it feels right, and women adopted this sexual empowerment to overcome social suppression. I get it and all, I truly do. And I am not a woman so I have not walked in their shoes. But to me, reducing sex to essentially a transaction that happens between two people just does not sit well with me. I am not going to sit here and cite Bible verses and preach about virginity, no that’s not the point. But the way sex has been reduced to something that just merely happens in society troubles me. Collette Gee stated “sex does not equal a relationship; a relationship doesn’t equal sex”. In my mind, sex and relationships are not always synonymous with each other. Conversely, just because you are having sex does not mean you are in a committed relationship. I have no problem accepting that. I don’t share the same religion as everyone else and I get that. I just get concerned when people, male or female, think sex and sexual power can make them whole.

I’m done preaching. Let me be clear, this is not a solely a problem with women. This is a men problem as well. More important, this is a holistic society problem. Feldt stated “sexual power has always been the universal engine that drives human activity”(p.85). She is definitely right, men solicit sex all the time. Take for example the music video below.

This video starts with Jason Derulo lying in bed and thinking about his lover, or next hookup. He sings “I got your body on my mind and I want it bad”. Again, men and women alike are harnessing the power of sex in pop culture. As you can see, the rest of the video is Jason getting quickly over to this girls house and then ultimately lying in bed with her. I don’t think it’s too extreme to assume that Jason has sung this song to only one person. It’s popular culture. No matter where you go, music videos often have a common theme of this video. This won’t change. And honestly, yes I will continue listening to all these songs. I mean come on the beat is this is awesome! This is the way popular culture is. But I have to admit, I just don’t love all the meanings behind it. 

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Madonna’s Message

In My Pocket Madonna, Laura Barcella writes about how Madonna inspired her. I’m not going to lie, I was planning on getting a bit preachy in this post as well. Barcella stated her ex-boyfriend John “was a Holocaust denier… Why? Because he never liked Madonna” (p. 87). Barcella then goes on to describe John by using language that Feldt said was archetypes that society placed on women. Barcella says John was “a virgin, for all intents and purposes, and had a long-standing aversion to masturbation (yes, really). Hence, he knew very little about, well, anything when it came to pleasure” (p. 90) . Here, Barcella described John as both a virgin and a clueless incompetent, using Felfd’s words. Reading this on a surface level would be pretty easy for me to heavily critique both articles through my personal bias, but after re-reading, I think I might be missing the point.

Barcella talks about the struggles of being a woman, particularly with what society said. For example, “that I was nothing without a guy” (p. 88). Barcella continues on to say that she “kept [Madonna] in my back pocket for a little guardian angel, and I turned to her for hits of strength and inspiration when I needed them. She always delivered” (p.89). Whenever Barcella was feeling weak, she was reminded by Madonna’s strength and self-reliance” (p. 89). Although I can disagree with the correlation of all Madonna haters being Holocaust deniers, I can genuinely agree with Barcella’s piece for what she says. I think my favorite quote comes at the end of her article. She writes “I’m still single. I’m still a feminist. And I still crave a romantic relationship (I’m human!), while knowing, deep down, that it won’t cure my struggles with depression and self-doubt” (p. 92).

I appreciate the way Barcella writes this. She openly admits that a romantic relationship won’t all of a sudden make her whole. My previous rant was my concern over people, men and women alike, believing sex to be a cure to all problems. This, in my opinion, just creates a rabbit hole that is so hard to escape from. While I do disagree with some aspects of Madonna, and I guess popular culture as a whole, particularly in the way sex is portrayed, I genuinely see the merits and admiration for Madonna. Sarah Churchwell of The Guardian stated it very well. Churchwell wrote that Madonna’s “controversial sexual politics raised questions about her self-commodification”. Or what I said earlier about treating sex as a mere transaction between two people. However, Madonna insisted “that no one else defines her, and making everyone recognize blond ambition, even if they don’t like it”. So the question remains, do I like Madonna? Holistically, I would say yes. The way she inspired Barcella, Feldt, and millions of other women is fantastic. Is there parts about her that I don’t like? Sure. But the parts I do not like about her are systemic to popular culture as a whole. I realize that this will probably never change, but I have to stay rooted in what I affirm to believe the most important part of me – my religion.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Ellen’s Impact

Popular television shows and sitcoms are often evaluated in terms of success using standardized metrics such as number of viewers, length of the series, or even the quality of advertisements that run throughout the show. Evaluating Ellen based on these standardized metrics would do the show such a great injustice, since the success of the show can be determined by something extraordinary, not ordinary. The coming out episode, or Puppy Episode, of Ellen was so historic, just take a look below and then we will discuss it.

Anna McCarthy wrote that this episode was a thing of firsts. McCarthy writes “it was a largely ceremonial first, an occasion we were all supposed to remember as the moment when queer lives finally became part of mainstream television” (p. 594). McCarthy then goes on to analyze the overall success or failure of the show. However, analyzing the show this way prevents us from looking at what the show actually was. McCarthy states that the show, in some ways, was a failure because Ellen “became a program about a character who was gay every single week, and … that was too much for people” (p. 596). Due to this public perception, the writers of the show were assigned an impossible task, which was “to produce an episodic rather than a serial sense of queer life” (p. 597). Or put differently, episodic comes and goes, depending upon the needs and demands of the show, versus serial queerness which means it is present in every single episode. McCarthy writes about the struggle Ellen faced when portraying this, such as having the show rated as TV-14 when showing same sexes kissing. Due to these struggles, Ellen was able to craft  amazing messages through the use of analogies in her shows. McCarthy ultimately concludes that the show was successful in the sense that “Ellen’s coming out episode was momentous because it promised to make queer life something other than an interruptive force, something potentially assimilated into the repertoire of romantic and personal situations replayed weekly on the prime-time sitcom” (p.599). Or put differently, Ellen tried to assimilate serial queerness in everyday life. Ellen, although it had a few downfalls, was successful in the sense that it achieved LGBTQ+ representation in sitcom and paved the way for future LQBTQ+ representation in the industry.

It's been awhile since we tied these readings to business, and specifically investments. I bet many of you did not know there is an ETF that invests in supporting serial queerness and the representation of the LGBTQ+ community. Specially, The Workplace Equality ETF (ticker symbol EQLT), invests in 272 companies both foreign and domestically that “support equality for LGBT employees through their workplace practices, including non-discrimination policies regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and providing full benefits for same-sex spouses, domestic partners and transgender individuals”. By making this the primary screening objective when investing in companies, EQLT helps support serial queerness by ensuring the LQBTQ+ community gets the same exact treatment as everyone else. Performance measurements from EQLT supports the notion that investing in equal rights, pay and benefits of the LGBTQ+ community pays off, even sometimes beating the broad market index (S&P 500). For the past year to date, EQLT returned 9.29% while the S&P 500 returned 8.01%. As McCarty’s article shows, integrating the idea of queerness into society has been painful and slow. We have come a long way, but we definitely still have a long way to go. Who knows, maybe investing in EQLT would prove to be a great investment opportunity as society learns to better embrace the LQBTG+ community. As investment performance has proven over the past year, we can continue to invest in the status quo such as the S&P 500 and return average performance, or, we as a society, can chose to invest in something more worthwhile, such as EGLT, and see not only better return, but a more inclusive and accepting society. 

I stated earlier that Ellen was successful because it helped achieve LGBTQ+ representation in television. According to Shannon Liao of The Verge, “LGBTQ representation on television hit a record high this year [2018], with 8.8 percent out of 857 series regulars on broadcast TV openly identified as on the gay, trans, or queer spectrum”.  As Liao points out, the path that Ellen ultimately paved for representation within the industry has been hitting record highs. However, the way the LQBTG+ community has been represented in the industry shows a participation, but not acceptance, which is a huge difference. Take for example, Grey’s Anatomy. Yes, I have watched the show a few times. One of the characters, Dr. Arizona Robbins, who was played by Jessica Capshaw, was an open lesbian in the show. However, Dr. Robbins left the show. Why? Well, there is a few reasons which I will leave open to interpretation. The writers of the show indicated that it would cost almost $20 million a year to have her stay. Additionally, the writers of the show say the exit “was based strictly on the show’s creative decision”. Hmm, creative decision or hesitance to accept serial queerness?

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Beauty Standards

In 1991, Naomi Wolf wrote “The Beauty Myth”. Wolf writes “’Beauty” is a currency system like the gold standard.  Like any economy, it is determined by politics, and in the modern age in the West, it is the last, best belief system that keeps male dominance intact.” Or put differently, Wolf believes that this is the last leg of patriarchy standing up to feminism. Wolf continues by saying how “more women have more money and power and score and legal recognition” than women have ever had before. However, despite this, “in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers”. Due to how women feel about the beauty standard, Wolf states that women “do not feel as free as they want to”. Wolf acknowledges that women have in fact broken through many legal and material barriers, but yet “images of female beauty” weigh them down.

Twenty years after Wolf published “The Beauty Myth”, she conducted a follow up study that found “about 17 percent of women felt more trapped than ever by the ideals of attractiveness; about 53 percent have good days and bad days. The rest, about 30 percent, are “change agents” who are defining beauty for themselves”. With this follow up study, Wolf shows how the standards of the Beauty Myth are still very prevalent on women, even just eight years ago. Even more interesting, are those who are defining beauty on their own terms, or what Wolf refers to as “change agents”. At least from my understanding, and I could be wrong about this since I am not a woman and not subject to the beauty standard, but these agents of change that are defining beauty on their own terms seem to be pushing towards an image of natural beauty, or beauty with little to no makeup. Take for example Alicia Keys, who in 2016 had a photoshoot for her album after coming from the gym with no makeup on. Keys ultimately did this because she came to the conclusion that conforming to the socially set beauty standard was “so frustrating and so freakin’ impossible”.  Keys referred to the pictures for her new album as “raw”, but yet Keys said it was “the strongest, most empowered, most free, and honestly beautiful that I have ever felt”. Keys then started #nomakeup selfies, which she hoped “to God it’s a revolution”.

I have no doubt that the beauty standard in today’s culture is more prevalent and frustrating than ever, and I guess it is true I am kind of cherry picking an example to contradict the impact of the beauty standard, but I recently came across something on country singer’s Maddie and Tae’s Instagram. Yes, I follow them, I love their music! Take a look below.

I saw this and knew this was not the first time I have seen Chrissy Metz. I knew she was staring in a movie I had been wanting to see, ‘This Is Us’, but I had no idea about her story. Metz started eating as a kid as a way to spend quality time with family, but this habit got out of control as she found herself always eating. Despite the relentless bullying and shaming Metz was subject to as a child and as a young star, Metz was ultimately able to “feel truly comfortable in her own skin, and embrace her identity beyond her body”. Metz has been able to use “her stardom to inspire others to love and respect themselves”. Particularly, Metz has been an inspiration for “plus-size ladies and for anyone dealing with weight”. Take a look at the video discussing this in further detail.

I must be careful with what I am implying here. I do believe women and girls today, more than ever, are under intense pressure to conform to “ideal” beauty standards. I am not implying that what Wolf wrote about is not relevant anymore, I truly believe it is. However, it encourages me that women like Alicia Keys and Chrissy Metz are not only breaking the beauty standard and being agents of change in their own right, but they are publicly being supported, encouraged and I am sure they are inspiring countless people. Hopefully these two, and many other agents of change, are being trailblazers for the present, so the next generation can be encouraged to not conform to a western beauty standard, but rather, define what beauty looks like for them individually. Metz, from what I can tell, is one of the most comfortable people in their own skin and believes that her value is not derived from her looks. I believe this to be one of the most important messages in society today, and hope her legacy and message continues to live on. 

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Beauty Standard and Capitalism

Through the lens of the beauty myth, Janet Mock gives further discussion on the topic. Mock is a “nationally recognized writer and speaker who regularly tackles what it means to be a trans woman of color”. In an interview with Jamilah King, Mock talks about her experience being “frightening” as Mock was “taught for so long” that she was supposed “to keep secret” the things that she was going through. Despite these truths ultimately manifesting into shame, Mock has been able to “empower” herself by sharing her story. Much of Mock’s interview was about the courage this has taken to step out, but also about the community and support system she has. Mock states “I don’t have to carry the entire burden of  representation” since there are other highly visible trans stars that include LaVerne Cox and Carmen Careera. 

It is interesting that, Mock, Cox, Careera and Caitlyn Jenner, all, to an extent, reinforce western beauty standards. A picture of these four is shown below. Even further, the extremely high costs of “passing”, or “one person living in his or her chosen gender without anyone knowing he or she ever lived a different one”, are often economically unobtainable for most people. Writing for CNN, Alyssa Jackson states that many people elect to not undergo surgery as part of their transition because of “the cost of the procedures – potentially more than $100,000 out of pocket”. The Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery estimates that costs can be $140,450 to transition from male to female and $124,400 to make the transition from female to male. Despite this, Jackson writes “the cost of a transgender person’s transition can vary widely, and pricing information is often not available”. For the majority of people who wish to transition, this cost is simply unobtainable and puts them at “an extremely elevated risk for discrimination and harassment”. Due to this, Jackson writes that “passability is definitely a privilege”. Even further, Jenner’s transition surgery cost $4 million. Mock, Cox and Careera all reported having a private transition and cost information is not available. Although the representation these stars bring to the transgender community is wonderful, these facts imply that the representation of members of the transgender community that do not pass and do not have similar economic resources of these stars is still lacking.

These immense costs bring up a great question, what is the role of capitalism in setting the western beauty standard? A good way to begin answering this huge question is to look at the executive leadership of two of the biggest cosmetic and make-up companies in the world: L’Oreal and Estee Lauder. The President and CEO of L’Oreal USA is Frederic Roze, who interestingly enough, began his career in the marketing department. Gretchen Saegh-Fleming, a white woman, is the Chief Marketing Officer at L’Oreal USA.  Fabrizio Freda is the Chief Executive Officer at Estee Lauder while Alexandra C. Trower, another white woman, is the Executive Vice President of Global Communications, a role that serves as a similar capacity as Chief Marketing Officer. The point I am making is that these companies are run by men, while white women essentially decide what to market as the western standard of beauty.

However, what is being celebrated within these companies is Estee Lauder’s 54% of vice president position and higher are women, while L’Oreal USA is recognized as being one of the top ten workplaces for Women Leaders. I cannot find research to completely bolster this claim, but my guess is that most of these woman leaders are white. The business world is celebrating women in leadership positions, but ignoring the importance of intersectionality. This is a great step of course, but it appears that white women are the people in charge of setting the western standard of beauty.

Throughout these blogs I have talked quite a bit about sustainable investing. The US Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment defines it as “Sustainable, responsible and impact investing (SRI) is an investment discipline that considers environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) criteria to generate long-term competitive financial returns and positive societal impact”. Money invested in SRI assets have grown to $12 trillion, or about a quarter of all invested assets under professional management in the United States (see picture below). SRI has encouraged wonderful societal and environmental change in big business in the United States. However, what the businesses, the stock market, and investors are rewarding is the issue of climate change. Specifically, the top specific category in ESG investing is climate change, which accounts for $3 trillion. The most prominent social issue being addressed with ESG investing is equal employment opportunity and diversity, which accounts for $1.6 trillion. Although SRI has encouraged great change, unfortunately, the stock market does not appear to be directly addressing the lack of an intersectional approach to women in leadership positions. Although big business is addressing the issue of climate change, it appears this is the main focus within SRI. It could be years until the stock market rewards issues discussed in this class, if ever at all.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

More Beyoncé!

Writing for bitchmedia, Vanessa Willoughby talks about the positive impact of Beyoncé’s Formation. Willoughby writes, “Formation, is both an homage to Blackness and a merciless indictment of systemic racism and its codependent partner, white supremacy”. Willoughby states that Formation “celebrates the very traits that white supremacy has demonized and rejected” by including lyrics such as “I Like my baby heir, with baby hair and afros. I Like my negros nose with Jackson Five nostrils”. In this overall favorable view towards the song and video, Willoughby concludes “Beyoncé’s ‘Formation’ is not meant to capture a universal feeling, but rather the bond formed by customs within a specific culture”.

In a direct contrast to Willoughby, Yaba Blay of Colorlines, takes an overall negative view towards Formation. Blay was immediately “hype” around the release of the video, “until it got worse”. Although Willoughby celebrated Formation as a celebration of blackness, Blay states “hearing someone, particularly a woman, make a distinction between Creole and “Negro” is deeply triggering”. Much of Blay’s article is about how “light skinned” blacks have better “access to educational, occupational, social and political opportunities that darker skinned, kinkier-haired, non-Creole folks have been denied”. Blay admits that she is watching Formation “through a very tenuous and personal lens colored by my experiences growing up in New Orleans”. Blay concludes her article by saying how we need to react to Formation “from a personal place” and respect those who might disagree with us.

These two articles interpreted Beyoncé’s Formation to mean two completely different things. Further, these two articles used the same exact image found in the video to say two completely different things. Blay uses the full image of Blue Ivy in the video to state “I can’t help but wonder why the two little girls in the video playing with Blue are significantly darker than her and dressed like old women afraid of the sun while Blue shines, hand on hip, in a sundress”. Willoughby, on the other hand, shows a zoomed in picture of Blue Ivy and says “what does unapologetic Blackness look like? For Beyoncé, it is pride and love in the face of hate. It is life and it is innocence, as momentarily portrayed by her daughter, Blue Ivy”.

I think Willoughby and Blay’s piece, at the end of the day, highlight the very nature of analyzing and studying popular culture. Each author merely draws on personal experiences, and through this lens, makes a conclusion what the video means, to them specifically. Essentially, each author, and I am sure thousands of different people, watched Formation through a lens, analyzed it, and came up with a different opinion. And to me, that’s just exactly what it is, a critical opinion. Due to personal experiences being, well personal, everyone can be entitled to their own opinion and have the mutual respect of understanding no one is right, no one is wrong. And perhaps, that is exactly what the study of popular culture is all about. I am really not sure if there is ever a “right” answer, but rather, just different lenses to analyze pieces through. I like what Blay concluded with, “We need to say, ‘You know what? This argument ain’t about Bey. It’s about me.’” I couldn’t agree more. However, I think Beyoncé needs to be greatly celebrated and respected for leveraging her position to spark these very arguments, not torn down and dismissed. At least in my opinion, good for you Beyoncé, good for you.

Blay had a problem with Beyoncé’s lyric about the distinction between Creole and Negro, and her problem was perfectly supported with great logic and a personal opinion. However, from my opinion, I think it is maybe possible Beyoncé purposely included this with intentions of creating more representation and more conversation about these groups. From this lens, I think Beyoncé’s Formation is wonderful, as it obviously sparked immense debate.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Modern Feminism

In her article “For White Girls Only? Postfeminism and the Politics of Inclusion”, Jess Butler distinguishes between postfeminism and third-wave feminism. Butler writes that although there are many similarities between the two, but “yet, while third-wave feminism actively engages with feminist history, if only to deem it inadequate, Postfeminism displaces or replaces feminism altogether” (p. 42). Distinguishing this further, Butler writes “it is particularly important to distinguish between Postfeminism, which I define as a range of cultural disclosures, and third-wave feminism, which I define as a quasi-political movement” (p. 41). Butler says that Postfeminism is linear, backlash and sex positive and displaces or replaces feminism altogether. Postfeminism is about individual choice and empowerment in place of political activity. Third-Wave Feminism, however, according to Butler, is more progressive and corrective than other waves of feminism. Butler talks about how Third-Wave Feminism is created to be a more inclusive and welcoming space that allows women to define feminism on their own terms.

Butler then discusses intersectionality in today’s popular culture. Butler states “it becomes clear that the postfeminist “girls” who are going “wild” are not all white and middle class” (p. 48). Butler talks about how popular culture icons such as Beyoncé, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Jennifer Lopez, etc. are all giving representation to minority groups. It is absolutely wonderful that these stars are having the influence they are in popular culture. Of course I believe this is a great step, but we are definitely not all the way “there” yet.

We discussed earlier how the western beauty standard is still being set by white females. Additionally, I came across a startling statistic in the Wall Street Journal this morning. The graph below shows Black and Hispanic minority groups are still, on average, earning significantly less than white counterparts. Representation of minority groups in popular culture is a good step, but in the modern business and workplace setting, it still appears the wage gap persists. I am not entirely sure how the modern feminist movement can work to fix the wage gap, but something does not to be done to address it. All I know, is that I am looking forward to doing my part in addressing this issue in my future career. However, all I can do is hope others will do the same. 

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Social Justice

Embedded within The Combahee River Collective Statement was an article About the Black Lives Matter Network. This article outlined history about the Black Lives Matter movement. Specifically, “#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was post-humously placed on trial for his own murder”. The article states that the Movement is a response to the “anti-Black racism that permeates our society”. Black Lives Matter transcends the traditional movement in which Black communities merely support Black communities by affirming “the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum”. Traditionally, the lives of Black women of all kinds have been ignored in many of these movements, but this Movement explicitly considers the lives of all who belong to the Black community.  Essentially, the Black Lives Matter Movement “is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement”.

The article then goes on to explain what exactly Black Lives Matter means. Or, in the words of the article “when we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state”. The article then goes on to speak of gun violence, Black people in prison, the rights of Black queer and transgender folks, undocumented Black folks, and many other oppressed groups. The article concludes with “#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise”.

Back on February 27, 2019 I had the opportunity to attend a discussion about social justice, which was hosted by Dr. Robin L Turner and Dr. Courtney Mohler. Within this relaxed atmosphere in the Diversity Center, I was able to read a few articles about social justice and discuss the articles in a small group. As someone who has not studied this issue at all, I was initially challenged quite a bit when I was trying to describe what social justice is. I remember having a difficult time describing what the phrase meant, but it was easy for me to point to a few references that showed when social justice was not achieved, such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin and many other unarmed black men.

Although I admit I haven not studied social justice much, I have been exposed to this concept due to my favorite rapper, Meek Mill. Meek was tossed back into a prison cell in 2017 for a series of seemingly inconsequential probation violations after his 2008 conviction for drug and weapons charges. However, in April of 2018, Meek was released from prison and his victory quickly stood for much more than his personal freedom. After being released, Meek Mill was turned “into a symbol of what activists say is systemic racism and abuse in the criminal justice system”. With the incarceration of Meek, civil rights activists finally had the attention they needed to bring to the problem of “millions of convicts, many of them black, live in fear of being sent back to prison for years for minor violations”. In Meek’s case, he was sent back to prison for years due to performing “a motorcycle stunt in a music video”. However, many civil rights activists, NFL executives and celebrities, most notably Jay-Z and Kevin Hart, came to the defense of Meek and the hashtag #FreeMeek was plastered all over social media. I still remember April 24, 2018 vividly as it was the day Meek was released from prison, picked up by a helicopter, and then set court side for the Philadelphia 76ers first round playoff game.

Although friends before, the alliance and friendship of Jay-Z and Meek grew in strength throughout Meek’s incarceration. In addition with Michael Rubin, a co-owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, Jay-Z and Meek launched the Reform Alliance which is “a new initiative dedicated to changing the ‘illogical laws that make no sense’, but rule the lives of the estimated 4.5 million Americans currently on parole or probation”. Other celebrities, including New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, have already pledged $50 million to this effort. Meanwhile, Meek is leveraging his celebrity status to fight and reform the criminal justice system. Specifically, Meek has vowed “to speak for the people who don’t have a voice” or put differently the “two-thirds of the population in the criminal justice system” who are on probation or parole. Despite this population making up a significant percentage of those incarcerated, “it’s been the area that’s least focused on [by reform efforts]”. Meek is using the injustice brought about against him to speak for millions. Meek has been rapping about these injustices through his new music, but also check out the video below. Meek is using his platform as a star rapper to be a catalyst in the criminal justice reform process. 

[developing-feminist07-blog]

The Minaj Brand

Margaret Hunter and Alhelí Cuenca wrote about the success of Nicki Minaj in their article “Nicki Minaj and the Changing Politics of Hip-Hop: Real Blackness, Real Bodies, Real Feminism?”. Hunter and Cuenca examine “conceptual contributions to help understand the presence of Nicki Minaj and her seemingly instant rise to fame in the world of hip-hip and popular music” (p. 27). Later in the blog, we will compare analysis of Minaj and Beyonce, so the following paragraphs will work to both summarize Hunter and Cuenca’s article as well as set up a base for comparison in a later post.

Hunter and Cuenca state the “deregulation of media ownership in the mid-1990s pushed many women musicians into a narrow, highly sexualized model, or pushed them out of popular music altogether” (p.28). Remember Wolf’s article examining the life of Shakespeare’s fictional sister? Last time Wolf’s article was discussed, it was applied to potential female business executives, but this time Wolf’s article remains relevant through the lens of women musicians. Hunter and Cuenca continue on to say that Minaj’s stardom is due to her ability to navigate capitalism, accommodationist politics and her constant re-branding. Or in the words of the authors, “we suggest that Minaj’s success derives from the match of her business and image strategy to the changed landscape of contemporary hip-hop” (p. 27). Minaj was successfully able to use her body as a commodity and mass market herself as she changed with different audiences. Her ability to change with her audiences can be related back to Minaj’s many different alter ego’s which include Roman and Martha Zolanski, Nicki Leinsky, Harajuku Barbie, and many others. Hunter and Cuenca state that Minaj’s “alter egos allow her to poke fun at whiteness, and be sexually explicit, while distancing herself from both of these practices” (p. 32).

The article shows how Minaj was able to create a brand that took advantage of capitalism to market herself, and be rewarded handsomely. In fact, “due to her endorsements and partnerships with MAC, Myxx Moscato, OPI, Pepsi and Beats by Dre, Minaj was the ninth-highest earner in hip-hop in 2015, and the highest paid woman by far” (p. 28). In addition to her many brands, the article suggests that the reason Minaj has been so successful can be related back to the fact she works to present real blackness. Male hip-hop artists have long portrayed blackness that highlights “criminality, poverty, violence… anger, and sexual domination over others, especially African American women” (p. 31). However, Minaj’s work “challenges mainstream ideology of blackness” (p. 31). Overall, Hunter and Cuenca’s article portrayed Minaj in a very positive manor, however, they write “but Minaj has been critiqued in the media as much as she has been praised” (p. 39).  

It is quite difficult to talk about Minaj without mentioning the Anaconda music video. Take a look below. Of course due to having a business background, one of the main things that stuck out to me was the many different product placements throughout this video. Minaj’s Myxx Moscato was promoted many different times, and her promotion with the Pink Beats Pill is also shown. This video shows that Minaj is leveraging her platform as a star rapper to help promote her products. Beyond that, however, there are so many things to notice about this music video. How are we to interpret the way Minaj displays herself? It is not surprising that many disagree on this. One side says “when it comes to inspiring young women, her message is to be a Barbie-to be plastic, to be fake, to all have blonde hair”. While the other side says “Minaj’s brand of Barbie doll-like feminity both imitates and parodies the iconic doll, going beyond straightforward identification”. According to Aliza Vigderman, this music video shows that Minaj is not trying to conform to Western standards of beauty. It is also important to note the role males have in this video, they have essentially no role. Vigderman states “Minaj creates a female-dominated world where she both controls and enjoys her sexuality”. The only appearance a male makes during the video is when Minaj is giving Drake a lap dance. In a complete contrast to culture, Minaj makes Drake the subservient. Minaj does this by taking control of the lap dance and slapping his hand away when he gets too touchy.

So what’s the big deal? What are we to think of Minaj? Considering the ideals Hunter and Cuenca stated Minaj raps about, Minaj’s personal life is ironic. For example, her ex-boyfriend, Safaree, accused Minaj of assaulting him with a knife. Minaj’s brother is currently going through a sexual abuse case involving a child. Additionally, Minaj recently came out with a song featuring Tekashi 6ix9ine, “who was charged with using a 13-year-old child in a sexual performance in 2015”. 

Considering all this, does Minaj empower or objectify women? The jury is still out on this question. Rachel Segal makes arguments for both. Minaj empowers women by opening doors for females in a male dominated genre, Minaj displays her sexuality in an empowering way and Minaj speaks her mind in support of women. However, according to Segal, Minaj helps enforce sexist stereotypes by displaying her own body in a hyper-sexualized manor. Segal says this “enforces sexist stereotypes suggesting that a women’s value is directly proportional to how she looks and how men judge and assess her attractiveness”. Take for example the Anaconda video. Segal also claims that Minaj “uses her body for sexual marketing” which is vastly different from “using her body to promote sex-positive feminism”. No matter which side of the argument you fall on, it is clear that Minaj is taking ownership of her own body. Despite this and her use of many different alter egos, Minaj has faced sharp criticism, but continues to not adhere to cultural notions of traditional Western beauty.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

The Beyoncé Brand

I’ll be straight up honest, I thought everyone loved Beyoncé Let’s just say I was wrong, or at least the articles presented in this section proved me wrong. We all know who Beyoncé is, or at least think we know. Kristin Lieb, in particular, has a negative outlook of Beyoncé. In her article, “I’m Not Myself Lately, The Erosion of the Beyoncé Brand”, Lieb examines three particular stages of Beyoncé’s life that has ultimately led to fracturing of the core Beyoncé brand. Particularly, Lieb states “Beyoncé has experienced three potentially identity changing events in the past seven years: marrying Jay-Z, firing her father as manager, and birthing her first child, Blue Ivy Carter” (p. 75). Lieb then shows the brand Beyoncé portrayed during each of these major life events. Before her marriage in 2008, Lieb described Beyoncé as “classy, elegant untouchable-in-a-good-way diva persona” (p.76). Essentially, Lieb describes the pre-marriage Beyoncé as an independent woman who empowered others. Then, however, Beyoncé married Jay-Z in 2008. Around this time, Beyoncé released I Am… Sasha Fierce, where she began “turning up her sex appeal and sexual focus” (p. 76). This album, and marriage to Jay-Z, marked the transition of Beyoncé being the “good” girl, to the “emerging bad girl” (p. 78). Lieb’s main problem with the marriage of Beyoncé and Jay-Z was “the Jay-Z brand is taking more than it is giving, and the Beyoncé brand is giving more than it is taking” (p. 85).  Or put differently, Lieb believed Beyoncé was sacrificing her core brand in order to please Jay-Z. Then, in 2012, Beyoncé gave birth to her first child, Blue Ivy. This stage of Beyoncé’s brand was marked with the motherly instinct of compassion and accessibility. However, Lieb was frustrated with Beyoncé as she began entering into brand extensions which seemed to not relate to each other, such as Pepsi, H&M clothing and fragrances. Lieb’s frustration with Beyoncé continued with Beyoncé as she released the Beyoncé album in 2013. Lieb stated “people were buying the Beyoncé brand they had come to love, with no expectation they would be getting the Beyoncé-as-shapeshifter spectacle they found on the album” (p. 83). Due to these three distinct stages Beyoncé went through, Lieb states that “audiences no longer know what she stands for” (p. 89).

These different stages that Beyoncé went through help highlight a main point of Lieb’s argument. Within her argument, Lieb introduces the idea of multivocality, or “speaking to different target markets using different voices or personas to broaden her appeal” (p. 76). Most of us probably use multivocality on a daily basis. For example, the tone and vocabulary we use with our boss is probably different than the tone and vocabulary we use with friends or a significant other. Lieb says that multivocality is most effective when a dominant voice is present, or an overarching brand theme is apparent in all conversations. For example, in order to be regarded as a respectful and intelligent person, you need to have this overarching brand theme present throughout your conversations with your boss, friends and significant other. Lieb states that at each of the stages of life Beyoncé went through caused the core brand of Beyoncé, or the classy, empowered and elegant woman, to fracture and splinter into many contradictory brands. Lieb asks “is she the Perfect wife and Mother or is she a Smoking Hot Sex Machine?” (p. 76). Further, Lieb says Beyoncé is “playing the virgin figure, who evolves into the good mother as she ages, and the whore figure, who will do anything to please her powerful man” (p. 76). Lieb concludes her article with “we no longer know what Beyoncé really stands for, because she’s every woman” and due to this, “Beyoncé is abusing multivocality” (p. 80). Summarized, Lieb is not a fan of Beyoncé whatsoever.

To be fair, I guess Lieb does have a point, to an extent. Take a look at the videos below, the first is “Single Ladies” which was released in 2008 and characterizes what Lieb would refer to as the “emerging bad girl” phase of Beyoncé and the second is Beyoncé’s “Drunk in Love” performance at the 2014 Grammy’s.

Amanda Hess actually refers to “Single Ladies” as an anti-feminist anthem. Hess writes this song “can only end with Beyoncé emerging triumphant as his symbolic property, or crawling away as a meaningless ex”. Essentially, Hess has a problem with how Beyoncé is promoting marriage. However, Edan Lepucki disagrees. Lepucki writes “why is it unacceptable for a woman to require commitment from the man she’s sleeping with? Hess’s brand of feminism prohibits marriage as a viable choice for women, and the goal of feminism- or so I thought- was to give a woman choices”. As for the performance of “Drunk in Love”, Lieb has some major problems with it. She writes that Beyoncé was in “stripper gear, performing a male-gaze-ready dance of submission for her husband “ (p. 84). Lieb was not done there. She writes “the physical dynamics between the couple in the performance were cringe-worthy, with Beyoncé clearly performing to and for Jay, at times gazing lovingly at him, while Jay looked beyond and through her, clearly in his own world” (p. 84). I am not entirely sure I see what Lieb is seeing here. I’ve watched the performance a few times now. Beyoncé is the center of attention for the first three and a half minutes. Even when Jay-Z comes on, Beyoncé seems to take control of the performance. There is some eye contact, but it appears to be mutual, not what Lieb says. Additionally, Beyoncé leads Jay-Z down the stairs during the performance, which seems to show how she is taking control of the situation.

Further, I am not entirely sure I buy into Lieb’s critique. I understand what she is saying about Beyoncé’s brand changing throughout time. However, is this a bad thing? At the end of the day, Beyoncé has progressed her career and evolved her career through typical life events. I am not sure what Lieb is trying to suggest here. Should have Beyonce not become married or have a child? Lieb brings up a great point of multivocality. However, what if Beyoncé’s overarching main brand was to empower herself to make career decisions that fulfill her and chase her dream instead of what Lieb claimed? If this is the case, I do not think Beyoncé abused multivocality, but rather, leveraged it perfectly to achieve what she set out to do. 

[developing-feminist07-blog]

Feminism and Capitalism

In her article, “Beyoncé, A Feminist or Capitalist?” L. Ashley discusses the macro theme of feminism and capitalism. Ashley states “can you be a feminist and a capitalist at the same time? Well simply put the answer is no”. Ashley calls for women “to challenge the hierarchical structure which subordinates them in creative and intelligent ways in order to gain the social, political and economic equality of the sexes”. Ashley calls men to do inner work of transformation in order to combat the inequality of the sexes.

We will discuss more later how Ashley’s comments apply to Beyoncé, but I want to discuss Ashley’s remarks in how it relates to capitalism. I am sure Ashely, and many other academics can rebuttal my question, but why does feminism and capitalism have to be mutually exclusive? I have to admit my bias however, I am a capitalist. I am not going to get into economic theory or any of that, it’s not the point. All economic systems have innate flaws. The point I am trying to make is that despite it’s flaws, capitalism in the United States might be trying to integrate feminism.

In the U.S., perhaps the most notable sign of capitalism is the stock market. I know of the many different negative connotations associated with the stock market, particularly in light of Enron and the Global Financial Crisis. Honestly, some of these connotations might still be true, but there is no way of ever telling for sure. However, what I do know is the recent attempts of the stock market to empower women. Take for example these three funds:

• The Gender Diversity Index (SHE) was launched in 2016. SHE “seeks to provide exposure to US companies that demonstrate greater gender diversity within senior leadership than other firms in their sector”. SHE has a Year to Date (YTD) return of 10.94% and has $370 million of Assets Under Management (AUM). 

• The Women in Leadership Index (WIL) was launched in 2014. WIL is “designed to provide investors with exposure to U.S.-based companies that satisfy one or both of the gender diversity criteria of having a female chief executive officer or having at least 25% female members on the board of directors”. WIL has a YTD return of 14.74% and has $38 million AUM.

• The Women in Leadership Index (GWILX) was launched in 2015. WIL “invests in equity securities of companies that are tied economically to the US that are demonstrating commitment to advancing women through gender diversity on their boards and management”. GWILX has a YTD return of 9.24% and has $20 million AUM.

Interestingly enough, the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI), which essentially measures the performance of the entire stock market, has a return of 10.60% YTD. Two of the three funds mentioned have outperformed the overall stock market. This implies that not only did the people launching these funds believe in them, but also investors believe in the cause these funds are promoting. Even further, this implies that the corporations these funds are investing in are exceeding investor expectations. Or put differently, companies that are abiding by the restrictions as set forth by the funds presented are operating more efficiently and creating revenue in excess of investor expectations, perhaps due to the fact that they are simply empowering women. Another potential interpretation is that maybe investors are rewarding companies that are working to empower women, and this is being reflected in the form of excess stock returns. 

However, there are innate drawbacks in these funds. Most notably, these funds combined have AUM under $1 billion. To put this in perspective, VTI has roughly $110 billion of AUM. This can highlight many things, but most likely is just the result of lack of investor education about these funds, especially considering that all of these funds are under five years old. This is a completely new area of stock market. However, as investor awareness towards socially responsible investing (SRI) increases, these funds will most likely only grow larger as social goals of investors become more aligned with social goals of society.

Another innate drawback lies in what these funds do not mention. These funds only work to empower women. There is no mention of women of color in all of these funds prospectus, or the legal document requirement which outlines the funds goals and objectives. At least in my opinion, the stock market is a decade to decade and a half behind modern feminist academic theory. These funds are a start, but have a long way to go. I do believe that there will soon be a fund that integrates a feminist intersectional approach soon, but believe this is a few years off. I believe eventually, the stock market will catch up with modern feminist academic theory. If what Ashley is saying is true, just because I am a capitalist does that prevent me from being a feminist? I hope not. At least in my opinion, I am not sure these two concepts need to be mutually exclusive, especially considering the efforts of the stock market to be more socially responsible.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

So, Who is a Feminist Icon?

I think I need help reconciling the critiques of both Minaj and Beyoncé. At least from my opinion, there are many similarities between the two. Most notably, both use a strategy of multivocality. Minaj appeals to different audiences through her use of alter egos, while Beyoncé  has appealed to different audiences due to her natural progression of life. However, Beyoncé is, in the words of Lieb, abusing multivocality while Minaj is not critiqued in this manner. Both use our capitalist society to enhance their own wealth. Minaj does this through product placements of the brands she is endorsed by while Beyoncé creates clothing with her most notable phrases. Again, Beyoncé is heavily critiqued in this light while Minaj is not. Finally, both Minaj and Beyonce are beautiful in their own rights. Minaj gets criticized for the barbie and plastic image she is portraying. On the other hand, bell hooks calls Beyoncé a “terrorist” for showing her natural beauty on the cover of a magazine. I am not going to lie, I just do not understand this. Perhaps my biggest question is who gets to decide what aspects of each stars lives are critiqued while turning a blind eye to other aspects and merely critiquing that aspect in someone else’s career. I must admit, this confusion does come from merely the articles we read in this unit. It is possible my confusion can be resolved by reading additional articles, but I think the crux of my argument remains. Why are these stars so heavily critiqued?

Most of my frustration with these critiques comes from the critiques of Beyoncé. Particularly with Ashley’s article. Ashley writes “how [Beyoncé] carries herself, the message in her music and her personal life…. Well, I would call her a feminist as well”. However, Ashley continues to write “That was until I read Bell Hooks response to the video Lemonade in my Intro to Women’s Studies class at Cal State LA.”. Okay, so essentially Bell Hooks rhetoric convinced Ashley to change her thoughts. I would encourage Ashley to think on her own. Later in her article, Ashley writes “Lemonade is simply banking off the interpolating emotions of black females and stereotypes of angry women cheated on by their spouse. All motives for her work are stemmed from financial gains”. To be fair, Ashley could be correct, but what an awfully cynical interpretation this is. Ashley says that after being cheated on by her spouse, Beyoncé is merely releasing this album so Beyoncé can create more wealth. What if Beyoncé was releasing this album to help in her grieving process? There is no way we will ever know for sure, but from my perspective, I do not believe it is fair to jump to conclusions without truly understanding the content of one’s heart. There is no way for Ashley to understand the motives and intentions of Beyoncé’s heart when releasing this album, so for her to claim Beyoncé released this out of greed is not fair, at least in my opinion.

I have nothing but respect for Bell Hooks, she is incredibly smart and has great thoughts. She inspires many different people, and I think that is incredible. However, from my perspective, I am curious when Bell Hooks will ever be happy. What is Beyoncé to do to make Bell Hooks happy? Divorce Jay-Z, sacrifice all of her wealth and somehow become uglier? Bell Hooks is highly critical of the way Beyonce uses capitalism. But I do not understand how the way Beyoncé is using capitalism is fundamentally different than how Bell Hooks is. After all, Bell Hooks is utilizing capitalism to sell her books. I do not understand why it is such a bad thing to use our economy to share thoughts. Bell Hooks is incredibly smart, respected, and inspires countless people. However, my first impression of her is how critical she is. Bell Hooks has great thoughts, but I wonder if, at times, she is analyzing things on a much deeper level than even the artist themselves could have anticipated. Beyoncé has openly supported the feminist movement, only to be met with intense scrutiny from Bell Hooks. Further, it appears from reading these articles Bell Hooks only encourages other feminists to critique feminist icons rather than offer encouragement.

Essentially, my sincere confusion stems from everyone critiquing ever single little detail of these feminist icons. I readily admit that I am a rookie in the topic of feminism, but I believe my fresh perspective to be valuable and valid. From my perspective, I see both Minaj and Beyoncé as amazingly talented black women leveraging their talents to empower other black feminists, white feminists and other women alike. From my perspective, identifying as feminists and supporting feminist causes have only subjected Minaj and Beyoncé to more criticism than encouragement. We all have imperfections and failures, I just do not understand why these women are being as critiqued as heavily as what they are. To an extent, I wonder if this amount of public criticism has prevented other women from openly expressing feminism. Unfortunately, for me, reading this amount of criticism has made me shy away from identifying as a feminist. There just appears to be significantly more negative comments than positive thoughts. Again, this could just be a result of the specific articles I have read, but this is a theme I have picked up on from what I have read.

In my heart, I know women are equal to men. I openly acknowledge that many things in society prevent women from achieving things that men take from granted. I know these things are true, and I want to do my part in fixing them to the best of my ability. However, I am afraid of identifying as a feminist simply due to the fact that I am not able to relate to the level of academic writing these critiques are done at. I see the reason for critiques, but I do not understand the reasoning for heavily criticizing these two stars, when at the end of the day they are just trying to they are just trying to pursue a dream. I said at the beginning of my blog I would be honest, and these are my honest thoughts. I have seen people who I initially regarded as feminist icons be disregarded, so my question remains, who is the ideal feminist icon? Or even most importantly, why can’t these stars be encouraged for publicizing a feminist message? I will forever believe the two truths I stated earlier, but before I will fully embrace feminism, I believe I need help reconciling these things.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

So, Who is a Feminist Icon?

I think I need help reconciling the critiques of both Minaj and Beyoncé. At least in my opinion, there are many similarities between the two. Most notably, both use a strategy of multivocality. Minaj appeals to different audiences through her use of alter egos, while Beyoncé has appealed to different audiences due to her natural progression of life. However, Beyoncé is, in the words of Lieb, abusing multivocality while Minaj is not critiqued in this manner. Both use our capitalist society to enhance their own wealth. Minaj does this through product placements of the brands she is endorsed by while Beyoncé creates clothing with her most notable phrases. Again, Beyoncé is heavily critiqued in this light while Minaj is not. Finally, both Minaj and Beyoncé are beautiful in their own right. Minaj gets criticized for the barbie and plastic image she is portraying. On the other hand, bell hooks calls Beyoncé a “terrorist” for showing her natural beauty on the cover of a magazine. I am not going to lie, I just do not understand this. Perhaps my biggest question is who gets to decide what aspects of each stars lives are critiqued while turning a blind eye to other aspects and merely critiquing that aspect in someone else’s career. I must admit, this confusion does come from merely the articles we read in this unit. It is possible my confusion can be resolved by reading additional articles, but I think the crux of my argument remains. Why are these stars so heavily critiqued?

Most of my frustration with these critiques comes from the critiques of Beyoncé. Particularly with Ashley’s article. Ashley writes “how [Beyoncé] carries herself, the message in her music and her personal life…. Well, I would call her a feminist as well”. However, Ashley continues to write “That was until I read Bell Hooks’ response to the video Lemonade in my Intro to Women’s Studies class at Cal State LA.”. Okay, so essentially Bell Hooks’ rhetoric convinced Ashley to change her thoughts. I would encourage Ashley to think on her own. Later in her article, Ashley writes “Lemonade is simply banking off the interpolating emotions of black females and stereotypes of angry women cheated on by their spouse. All motives for [Beyoncé’s] work are stemmed from financial gains”. To be fair, Ashley could be correct, but what an awfully cynical interpretation this is. Ashley says that after being cheated on by her spouse, Beyoncé is merely releasing this album so Beyonce can create more wealth. What if Beyonce was releasing this album to help in her grieving process? There is no way we will ever know for sure, but from my perspective, I do not believe it is fair to jump to conclusions without truly understanding the content of one’s heart. There is no way for Ashley to understand the motives and intentions of Beyoncé’s heart when releasing this album, so for her to claim Beyoncé released this album out of greed is not fair, at least in my opinion.

I have nothing but respect for Bell Hooks, she is incredibly smart and has great thoughts. She inspires many different people, and I think that is incredible. However, from my perspective, I am curious when Bell Hooks will ever be happy. What is Beyoncé to do to make Bell Hooks happy? Divorce Jay-Z, sacrifice all of her wealth and somehow become uglier? Bell Hooks is highly critical of the way Beyoncé uses capitalism. But I do not understand how the way Beyoncé is using capitalism is fundamentally different than how Bell Hooks is. After all, Bell Hooks is utilizing capitalism to sell her books. I do not understand why it is such a bad thing to use our economy to share thoughts. Bell Hooks is incredibly smart, respected, and inspires countless people. However, my first impression of her is how critical she is. Bell Hooks has great thoughts, but I wonder if, at times, she is analyzing things on a much deeper level than even the artist themselves could have anticipated. Beyoncé has openly supported the feminist movement, only to be met with intense scrutiny from Bell Hooks. Further, it appears from reading these articles Bell Hooks only encourages other feminists to critique feminist icons rather than offer encouragement.

Essentially, my sincere confusion stems from everyone critiquing ever single little detail of these feminist icons. I readily admit that I am a rookie in the topic of feminism, but I believe my fresh perspective to be valuable and valid. From my perspective, I see both Minaj and Beyoncé as amazingly talented black women leveraging their talents to empower other black feminists, white feminists and other women alike. From my perspective, identifying as feminists and supporting feminist causes have only subjected Minaj and Beyoncé to more criticism than encouragement. We all have imperfections and failures, I just do not understand why these women are being as critiqued as heavily as what they are. To an extent, I wonder if this amount of public criticism has prevented other women from openly expressing feminism. Unfortunately, for me, reading this amount of criticism has made me shy away from identifying as a feminist. There just appears to be significantly more negative comments than positive thoughts. Again, this could just be a result of the specific articles I have read, but this is a theme I have picked up on from what I have read.

In my heart, I know women are equal to men. I openly acknowledge that many things in society prevent women from achieving things that men take for granted. I know these things are true, and I want to do my part in fixing them to the best of my ability. However, I am afraid of identifying as a feminist simply due to the fact that I am not able to relate to the level of academic writing these critiques are done at. I see the reason for critiques, but I do not understand the reasoning for heavily criticizing these two stars, when at the end of the day they are just trying to pursue a dream. I said at the beginning of my blog I would be honest, and these are my honest thoughts. I have seen people who I initially regarded as feminist icons be disregarded, so my question remains, who is the ideal feminist icon? Or even most importantly, why can’t these stars be encouraged for publicizing a feminist message? I will forever believe the two truths I stated earlier, but before I will fully embrace feminism, I believe I need help reconciling these things.

[developing-feminist07-blog]

What is Popular Culture?

Since my blog will apply references to popular culture, I find it useful to first explain this topic. When I first entered the class, my rudimentary understanding of popular culture included what was in the media. For me, the media I consume is almost entirely based off of The Wall Street Journal. Therefore, to me popular culture was whatever Mr. Trump was tweeting that would seem to directly impact the markets (Remember how this tweet made markets tumble?). I was partly correct, in this understanding, but mostly wrong.

John Storey wrote a fantastic article in 2001 that helped me advance my rudimentary definition into something more concrete. In order to understand popular culture, an obvious starting point is to understand culture. In his article, Storey states that popular culture is “one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” (p.1). So no worries if you do not have a concrete definition of what culture is because obviously many others struggle defining this too. One of the more popular definitions of culture is “a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period or group” (p.2). Another popular definition is “the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity” (p.2). In many of the definitions that Storey sets forth, there are mentions about intellects and aesthetics. In a way, this gives us the notion that a bunch of smart people help set culture. Remember this idea for later!

Now, to popular culture. A definition set forth by Storey states that popular culture is “a site of struggle between the ‘resistance’ of subordination groups in a society and the forces of ‘incorporation’ operating in the interests of dominant groups in society” (p.11). Uh oh. For us lovers of capitalism and big business, this does not seem to be a definition we want to digest. In modern business, this definition might translate to big corporations growing at a quicker rate than ever, and becoming so big that they are controlling some parts of popular culture, at the expense of subordinate groups, or the people that merely work for a corporation. This claim is pretty easy to refute, particularly in the modern corporate setting where Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is no longer a theory, but an actual business practice. For example, look at this video from Ford Motor Company. 

Ford, although a dominant business, is no longer enriching those at the top of the company, but rather investing in sustainable practices, diversity and inclusion and their workforce by empowering them to volunteer almost a quarter of a million hours in 2017. Corporate commitment to CSR, not only results in better corporate financial performance, but also helps to lessen the struggle between subordinate and dominant groups by working to make the world a better place. However, the claim Storey is making makes sense in light of when this article was written as Long-Term Capital Management, Enron and Worldcom were all collapsing.

Enough with this theory already! My favorite definition that Storey suggests is that popular culture is “what is being sold, song or produced” (p.13). I think with this definition, popular culture is pretty to understand and concrete, rather than theoretical. In his music video for “This is America”, Childish Gambino shows how a song can depict popular culture so well. Guthrie Ramsey, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, writes about how this song allows Gambino to rap about “the violent contradictions that come with being black in America”. Further, Ramsey states how “we think of popular culture as a space where we escape” but this song is “forcing us to understand that there’s actually nowhere to run”. This music video also depicts all of the mass and school shootings we have been seeing in America. Overall, I included this music video by Childish Gambino due to the fact it perfectly depicts many of the problems America faces, but in a rap song.

If I had to guess, all sexes and genders watched this video. So, I think it is fair to say that popular culture, now that we have a better understanding of it, is consumed by everyone. However, notice that both references I made to popular culture in this article (Mr. Trump and Childish Gambino), were both male. Although I could have easily done this to make a point, the following sections will show who gets the privilege of setting popular culture.