Am I a Bad Feminist?
By Emily Rutherford - Aug 15th, 2008 at 9:15 amI do consider myself a feminist. I believe in absolute gender equality, and I believe that women should not be subjected to harassment or objectification solely by virtue of their having vaginas. I’m pro-choice, I’m anti-hierarchical notions of heterosexual relationships, and, unlike many other young women, I’m not scared to call myself a feminist. But I also think I must not be very good at it, because when I read blogs like Feministing, I don’t really find myself getting worked up about a great many issues that I should probably be concerned about.
Take, for example, one particular Feministing post: “Coffee with a Double Shot of Objectification Please.” Two Oregon men have apparently attempted to cross Hooters and Starbucks to create a coffee chain called Bikini Coffee that features baristas in bikini tops and short shorts, and the tone of the post not-so-subtly suggests that I should be outraged.
Well, I’m trying to get angry, but it’s not working too well. Feministing criticizes the tone of the Willamette Week’s article on the subject, but I find the piece reassuring: The fact that the baristas sign modeling contracts indicates to me that everything is above-board and legal, and they’re volunteering to show a little skin. Yeah, they get paid minimum wage, but so do workers at hundreds of other food and retail chains. Oh, and just in case I was worried about a possible heterosexist angle on this setup, the Week happily assures us that lesbians are apparently the best tippers. Barring any evidence that the owners of Bikini Coffee are mistreating their employees, which I certainly don’t see here, I can’t find anything wrong with this picture. No one’s forcing Java Jugs baristas to be slaves to the patriarchy, and people have definitely done more demeaning things to pay off their college loans.
This is really funny, because I was so close to writing about the exact same topic, with pretty much the same opinion because of this post at Feministing. Like you, I’m completely unmoved by most cries of objectification. I just can’t fathom what the big deal is, as long as the language involved is free of violent or possessive overtones.
My only difference with you I guess is that I don’t even try to get angry about it…I feel like I’ve got enough anger about other things to make up for it haha
August 15th, 2008 at 11:17 amHmm…interesting. While I agree with you both that there’s really nothing wrong with it, considering that they knew what they were getting into, willingly agreed, can leave whenever they want, etc. I feel kinda conflicted — I mean it’s *technically* objectification right, because they’re all “Look at me! I’m pretty! You like?” but if employees do it on purpose does it still count?
August 15th, 2008 at 11:30 amI definitely feel you on the “bad feminist” thing. And, like Haley, I had the same reaction to Feministing’s crying foul. Sometimes I feel like Feministing is one of those militant feminist type organizations, because they will always find something to bitch about. It’s good that women are aware of stuff like this, but at the same time I think there is the danger of being hypersensitive.
It’s worth asking, who is behind these businesses that promote the slutty women stereotype? As it happens, men founded Bikini Coffee, so I think it is safe to say that they are guilty of adding to the objectification. While it’s true that women will always be readily available to objectify themselves, you have to consider who is making these opportunities.
I can’t say I would be surprised if a woman were to start up a business similar to Bikini Coffee, because frankly sometimes businesswoman are the most eager to create their niche in a competitive market, especially when they don’t have to fear the risk of being labeled sexist.
I suppose I’m torn. It sure would be nice to be able to empower each and every woman not to give in to the demand on their bodies, but it would be even better to curtail this demand in the first place.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pmThat’s a great point, Jessica, because I guess I’ll admit that in an ideal feminist world, there would be no market for such a coffee shop, let alone a demographic of women with nothing better to do than this.
And yet, that there is a market for it and women who will do it for work still doesn’t strike me as an urgent problem…a symptom of inequality, perhaps, but not the root of it.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pmOnce again, bad feminist etc., but even in an ideal feminist world I think there could be a market for such a coffeeshop. There would just be male baristas, too. It’s not so much the concept of objectification that I have a problem with, but the fact that it’s almost exclusively women who are objectified.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pmAnd I’ll add, out of fairness to Feministing, I don’t think that if we disagree about whether certain things are urgent problems, we should label them “militant.” The fact that Courtney saw this as a feminist issue and we don’t is more likely a sign that we simply have different working definitions and theories of feminism and exploitation, and I think a plurality of views is a good thing.
I think we ought to reserve the label “militant” for groups that are actually warlike, rather than feminists who see sexism where we don’t…
August 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pmI can understand that feeling, Emily, and I don’t think anyone is calling you a bad feminist for it (at least not here) so you don’t have to worry about that.
My general argument is that in MY feminist utopia, sexual relationships with other people (even the looking part) would consist of lusting after people who are completely humanized in your view. I just don’t see how you can see a person you’re lusting after who is in a position of inferiority to you (she’s your server, you are paying for her) as being as human and multi-dimensional as you are.
This isn’t an argument against CASUAL sexual engagemetn, just a desire for a kind of joint-humanity that I don’t think can be brought about in a capitalist exchange.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pmThat’s a fair enough point.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pmHaley, thanks for clarifying that. I definitely do not want to label Feministing as militant–but it doesn’t mean that other less savvy feminists won’t.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pmHaley,
Forgive me for being a free marketeer, but I fail to see how a server is in a position of inferiority to the customer, nor how a capitalist exchange can be de-humaizing.
The whole premise of capitalism is free exchange, that as individuals of equal right we freely choose to exchange that which we have of value for that which others have of value. Since everyone is a willing participant they are engaging on equal terms.
I fail to see how any other sort of economic exchange is more conducive to humanity and equality. I suspect the feudal lord, the Southern slaveholder, and the Communist planner all were much more likely to conceive of the people they engaged with as inferiors, if they even thought of them as human and not as commodities. And considering the sexual dynamics of these economic systems I’d day that capitalism has done much more to humanize the act of lusting.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pmWaterman–
Can you seriously look at the world and think that everyone is a willing participant and engaging on equal terms? This is so far from reality. Do you think rich women are as likely as poor, uneducated to take jobs as prostitutes? Why? Because poor women think it’s more fun? No, because inequality gives people different needs and then determines the number of choices they have. Economic conditions lay out people’s options for them. If everyone were born with the same access to the same resources and then experienced the same set of trials, we might say people are engaging on equal terms.
If the free market actually created free (aka, not constraied by inequality) people, you might be right that the relationship between the server and the buyer are free from a hierarchical structure. But as it is, I don’t know how you can possibly say a consumer buying a service doesn’t have a heightened level of superiority/power in the exchange, especially when the server is making minimum wage and most of the buyers likely make much more than that.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pmNo one is a “bad feminist” because s/he doesn’t react in exactly the same way as other feminists to certain images, ideas, texts, etc. Feminism isn’t some kind of monolithic, homogenous movement in which everyone thinks the same way. As a blog and as a collective of individuals, Feministing falls along a spectrum. No one blog, website, or feminist thinker is going to satisfy all of your needs and jive with all of your beliefs and sensibilities.
In her comment about economic inequality and the myth of choice, above, Haley does a much better job of explaining why this coffee shop is problematic than Feministing did. This is because Haley was willing to provide a refresher for Waterman on a fairly basic feminist idea. Feministing gets these fundamental questions constantly in their comments section, but doesn’t have time to answer them and usually refers people to the Feminism 101 blog (a great resource).
Whether it’s prostitution, stripping, or wearing a super-skimpy uniform while you make coffee, the sexualization of work for women is a big issue for feminists. Many people focus on whether sex work/sexualized work is inherently demeaning for women. There can be a lot of judgment passed on women who choose this work. At the same time, many sex workers are passionate advocates for legalization, and have many positive things to say about their work. I can understand why Emily isn’t getting riled up by the shoddy argument that “if she’s in her bikini top, it’s oppression!” Feministing didn’t do a great job spelling stuff out here.
Still, here’s why many feminists WOULD take issue with Emily’s post.
1. Just because everything is “above-board and legal” doesn’t mean that the situation is rosy. Most women in sex work (and hell, most women in shitty jobs) are in perfectly legal work situations. The problem is that these women’s economic and employment options are so limited that, simply to get by, they must use their bodies in a way that men do not. Lots of really regressive things are legal. Feminists don’t celebrate that. Instead, they ask why.
2. Just because “no one’s forcing” these women to take the job doesn’t mean that there aren’t highly coercive economic factors at work which basically constitute force. To use a very different example, “no one’s forcing” people to work in third-world sweatshops or to take first-world, minimum-wage jobs they can’t live on. As feminists, we ought to move beyond the idea that we are all freely choosing agents with the same choices. Women — particularly poor women of color (and women in debt - see #3) — have very different choices they’re forced to make.
3. “People have done more demeaning things to pay off their student loans”? And “lots of people work minimum wage jobs”? Well, if this is the measuring stick by which we decide what’s good for women and what isn’t, we might as well quit now. I’m teaching violin (fully clothed) to pay off my student loans, but President Bush still jacked up the interest rates halfway through my undergraduate degree. And students this year are having an even more difficult time securing loans that aren’t predatory. What will our younger sisters do to pay theirs off? These feminist issues and economic/political issues are deeply intertwined.
It’s probably GOOD feminism to disagree with Feministing.com sometimes. But a complete lack of economic and class analysis? Yup, that’s bad feminism.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pmLooking at the world, no everyone is not a willing participant. Not even in America. However, I will stand by my position, in a free market exchange everyone is a free and willing participant - and they always are so long as their participation is not coerced at the point of a gun (or other threat of violence of your choice).
Conditions of economic inequality are not comparable to politically mandated inequality. Do poor women choose to become prostitutes more often - most likely (I’d say yes except I haven’t seen the numbers and it isn’t that relevant to the argument so I’m not bothering to look it up now).
Also, your analysis of the server customer relationship is flawed. The customer’s increased buying power gives him or her no mgreater control over the server. Their power is in fact effectively equal. Both actors hold something the other desires and in doing so the buying power becomes irrelevant. To be superior the server merely has to refuse to serve the customer. If the server will not serve the customer it doesn’t matter if they have all the money in the world, they cannot make the server do anything the server does not wish to. Likewise, if a customer refuses to pay than the customer would seem dominant. However, in either scenario they only can gain dominance at cost to themselves, namely the loss of the desired good held be the other. And as far as I can tell that is an interaction of equals. And such interactions can only occur in a free market environment.
However, much more problematic for me than your opinion of free exchange is your portrayal of the idea of equality. If you’ll indulge me in a longwinded discourse on ethics.
Your focus on material equality is morally misguided at best and morally disnigenuous at worst. The fact is that if the focus of social morality is on everyone being materially equal than you accept as superior a society in which everyone was equal but living below the poverty line compared to a society in which all were above the poverty line but experienced extreme disparities in income.
What is far more significant is moral equality, specifically equality of obligation. To make clearer, what matters, from a moral perspective is that all individuals have the same freedom to be morally obligated by others and to morally obligate others. For example, I cannot place myself in physical contact with you without your consent but I am equally bound by the same moral obligation. Likewise, people cannot steal from each other, they cannot beat, rape, murder, or otherwise initiate force against any other individual.
That is true equality. Any other attempt at equality is massively flawed.
An equality to level material means requires that some agent steal resources from one to give to another. And it must also do so on a regular basis to account for greater economic talents some may have or greater destructive tendencies held by others. In doing so it justifies regular actions of theft as well fail to maintain any sort of repsonsibility for one’s actions.
If the focus is on inital opportunity a different set of problems are encountered. The theft is still effect, however people are held responsible. As a result we are obliged to allow people to destroy themselves, something I’m sure you would object to.
Or perhaps we could mandate equality of opportunity. But this is completely immeasurable. After all, can one objectively look at a person and know what will make their opportunities equal due to the human capacity for innovation and ability to generate opportunity where someone else would see nothing.
Maybe it would work to set aside material equality since any system of material equality has such glaring flaws. Maybe it would be better to try and ensure an equality of happiness. That way everyone would be at least equally happy with whatever the material situation is. But of course this too is effectively immeasurable. How can one compare Bill Gates and the Dalai Lama and your Average Joe? And what about differing tastes, if Jane is happiest when eating caviar and Betty when eating grilled cheese how can both be met?
In the end, the only truly equitable system is one of equality of moral obligation. There will be material inequalities, but everyone will operate under the same set of rules, with the same freedoms, and the same limit on their actions. And in that scenario, yes, the server is completely equal with the customer.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm>”The Waterman says:
>Looking at the world, no everyone is not a willing participant. Not even in America. >However, I will stand by my position, in a free market exchange everyone is a free >and willing participant - and they always are so long as their participation is not >coerced at the point of a gun”
Notice, that according to this conception of ‘freedom’, someone who is starving to death as the result of a macroeconomic collapse of their economy is every bit as free as Bill Gates. Moreover, a working-class low-wage earner is every bit as ‘free’ as wealthy investing classes who do not have to rely on wages of any kind to subsist.
Waterman, set the Ayn Rand aside for a moment, and consider that the real issue isn’t whether someone is pointing a gun at you (this is a trivial case of unfreedom), but what the economic/political conditions are that shape what someone’s relevant choices are. Thinking critically about that is a lot more difficult than reguritating lingo about ‘free-exchanges’ in a anarcho-capitalist utopia that hardly looks bears any resemblance to reality.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:16 amOh really, so I have failed to think critically about the issue? I suppose the exploration of numerous other conceptions of freedom and equality I went through in the previous comment don’t amount to anything then?
To accuse me of not thinking critically I would think it is incumbent upon you to offer at least a matching philosophic argument for why some other approach would be of greater moral equity than my own since I offered a detailed analysis of a number of other systems as well as my own in order to show its superiority.
And as for someone demanding obedience at the point of a gun being a trivial case of unfreedom, I’ve got a lurking suspicion that many - the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nelson Mandela, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Jefferson, and the countless millions that have died as a result of state-sponsored oppression - might disagree on that.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:30 pm