See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327801508 Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Chapter · September 2018 CITATIONS READS 0 1,551 1 author: Emilie Zaslow Pace University 30 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Feminism View project Playing with America’s Doll View project All content following this page was uploaded by Emilie Zaslow on 28 September 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. PRE-PUBLICATION COPY Zaslow, E. (2017). “Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power” in Travis, Cheryl and Jackie White (eds.) APA Handbook on the Psychology of Women. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association, p. 47-67. In a 2013 interview with BBC News, pop star Miley Cyrus announced that she sees herself as “one of the biggest feminists in the world” because “I tell women not to be scared of anything and... girls are beautiful.... Guys get to show their titties on the beach, why can’t we?” (Butterly, 2013). In 2015 she added, “Feminism . . . is the greatest thing ever” because “I think it’s cool to be a woman and be, like, super in charge.... I think [women] are more free than we’ve ever been” (Press, 2015). Cyrus’s statements, analyzed alongside the media discourse surrounding her, shed light on popular definitions and (mis)interpretations of feminism in the new millennium. Just months before the BBC interview, Cyrus had performed at the MTV Video Music Awards. In a skintoned body suit, Cyrus sang her hit “We Can’t Stop,” moving around the stage “mugging and twerking, and paused to spank and simulate analingus upon the ass of a thickly set AfricanAmerican backup dancer” (Rosen, 2013, para. 4). Later in the performance, Robin Thicke, a White male pop star, joined her for a duet of his single “Blurred Lines,” a song that had been facing criticism from feminists for promoting rape culture with its repetitive hook “I know you want it” and lines such as “So, hit me up when you pass through / I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two.” During this part of the performance, Cyrus danced with a fully Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power suited Thicke while grinding her behind into his crotch and then used a giant foam finger to caress her own and Thicke’s genitalia. Critics were split on their analysis of the politics of Cyrus’s performance: She was molesting Thicke; she was claiming her right to own her own image and sexuality; she was willingly participating in a culture that objectifies women; she was objectifying the Black female body; she was appropriating Black culture to create a minstrel show routine; she was being slut shamed by critics who regarded her as self-objectifying (see Cottom, 2013; Juzwiak, 2013; Rosen, 2013; Yates, 2013). Cyrus’s claim to feminism, in relation to this performance, demonstrates both the extension of second-wave feminist values and the shift from a social politic of collective social change to a market politic of individual choice. Like much of second- wave feminism, Cyrus’s feminism is missing an awareness of her positionality in racial relations of power. Unlike second-wave feminist thought, however, which was grounded in understanding the political nature of personal choices and the role of patriarchy in structuring personal experience, Cyrus’s neoliberal feminism—her girl power feminism—is relativistic and individual. Moreover, assimilated into a market culture, feminism has become, as we see through Cyrus’s performance, symbolic and sexual. In this chapter, I compare second-wave feminist visions of a collective sense of common cause to contemporary media translations of empowerment and autonomy through girl power. “Sisterhood is powerful” and “the personal is political” served as key mantras in the second wave of feminism. In the 1990s and 2000s, fueled by sociocultural shifts and a market skilled in turning social change movements into profitable trends, feminism has become a mainstream, Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power marketable commodity that no longer shares the values of the second wave. At its core, girl power reconceives both of the fundamental concepts of second-wave feminism: Individual achievement now trumps collective struggles and an individual’s choice has now replaced the structural system as the focus of critique. Now, energized by a neoliberal discourse, a girl power feminist is celebrated for her individual choice to objectify herself rather than encouraged to explore the structural normative femininity that she internalized. Rather than a movement for social change, popular feminism has become a depoliticized demonstration of an ambiguous empowerment and autonomy. In a time when women’s rights are still very much under attack, this depoliticized, personalized feminism offers a weak and insufficient path to justice. FOUNDATIONS OF SECOND-WAVE FEMINISM Second-wave feminism (1960s–1980s) took on many forms, but a common goal was “to intervene in, and transform, the unequal power relations between men and women” (Hollows, 2000, p. 3). In general, second-wave feminism provided a critique of women’s social, political, and economic positions within the social structure. Major focal points in discussions of feminism were, and continue to be, issues of the body (objectification, violence, reproductive rights, sexuality, sports, and work), difference (between women and men, as well as among women in terms of sexuality, race, class, ethnicity, and nationality), and the public versus private (work and home, personal and political). Second-wave feminist politics are often categorized by the form of redress demanded by its movement’s membership: liberal, radical, or socialist. Though these categories are too neat to apply to real-life activism and identities, they are useful in understanding debates within feminist politics. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Broadly, liberal feminists sought equality within existing social, political, and cultural structures. They relied on private sector and government interventions for change and fought for access and equity in professional, academic, and political realms. Radical feminists believed that access would not end gender oppression because such oppression was embedded in a patriarchal culture that was continuously reproduced and reified. For radical feminists, changes in representation, language, and cultural institutions were necessary building blocks in establishing a foundation for gender justice. Socialist feminists argued that the economic system of capitalism created a fertile ground for patriarchal oppression and sought systemic socioeconomic change as a requisite for altering the relations of power. Although each of these strands of second-wave feminist politics had a different understanding of the roots of, and approaches to ending, sexist oppression, they all shared the belief that collective struggle and some level of structural analysis of relations of power were fundamental for social change. Sisterhood Is Powerful “Sisterhood is powerful” served as the title of an anthology of feminist writings published in 1970 (Morgan, 1970). The phrase, which represented a frame through which activists understood their movement, became a leading mantra in the second wave of feminism. Sisterhood represented the idea of a collective struggle in the interest of equality for all women and the belief that despite differences, there were fundamental oppressions faced by all women. On the basis of their knowledge of power and, in some cases, their involvement with the Civil Rights Movement, feminist activists knew they had to resist the divide-and-conquer strategies of those Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power who sought to maintain masculine hegemony (Evans, 1979). Rather than focusing on individual moments of success, the concept of sisterhood drew on the commonalities of women and their ability to coalesce around similar oppressive conditions. Although few women of color were contributors to Sisterhood Is Powerful, the collection’s editor, Robin Morgan (1970), posited that divisions such as race, class, age, and sexuality have kept “women apart from each other” (p. xxv) and that feminism must bring them back together because universally “women . . . must play essentially the same role, albeit with different sets and costumes” (p. xviii). Morgan’s discussions of collectivity are somewhat naïve, but it is significant that she did not view sisterhood as an idealistic dream but as a political strategy. In her 2007 sequel, Sisterhood Is Forever, Morgan wrote that because “patriarchy’s genius lies in emphasizing differences between people,” feminists must “emphasize similarities wherever we can find them” (p. 577). From the perspective of second-wave feminism, it was women united in struggle that could end patriarchal oppression. hooks (2000) wrote of the 1970s movement, We understood that political solidarity between females expressed in sisterhood goes beyond positive recognition of the experiences of women and even shared sympathy for common suffering. Feminist sisterhood is rooted in shared commitment to struggle against patriarchal injustice, no matter the form the injustice takes. Political solidarity between women always undermines sexism and sets the stage for the overthrow of patriarchy. (p. 15) Although collective struggle was deemed a requisite strategy, racial, class, and sexual inequalities continued to exist within feminist organizations. White women with economic Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power privilege at the helm of these organizations often set agendas that served their own interests and failed to address intersectional oppressions. Even the language of equality fell short of truly tackling gender oppression across race and class. As hooks (1984) asked, “Which men do women want to be equal to?” (p. 18). Feminists of color, working-class feminists, and lesbian feminists argued that some White women leading the movement had not accounted for different forms of gender oppression, relinquished their own privilege, or included a critique of racism, classism, and heterosexism in their feminist critique of patriarchy. Indeed, as middle-class White straight women began to gain some economic and social power, they celebrated their own successes, some- times seeming to forget about the connective politics that had been the foundation of the movement’s philosophy (hooks, 2000, p. 16). In 1977, a collective of Black feminists wrote, “We are made constantly and painfully aware of how little effort White women have made to understand and combat their racism” (Combahee River Collective, 1977/1983, p. 218). Feminist women of color and lesbians advocated for a recognition of the intersectionality between various oppressed identities and an under- standing that connective gender politics requires feminists to see their own liberation as tied to that of oppressed men (Moraga & Anzaldua, 1981; see also Chapter 27, this volume). Sisterhood’s light brush strokes over difference marred it as a key strategy of secondwave feminism. Yet many who developed a valid critique of a politics of sisterhood continued to find the notion of collectivity important. Audre Lorde (1984), who famously preached, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (p. 110), reaffirmed that division was a tool of patriarchy. Although she advocated that individual women take stock of their own racist actions, she suggested that recognizing and celebrating difference could lead to collective Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power liberation. Lorde wrote, “As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change” (p. 112). If the master’s tools of separation would not lead to the social change feminists sought, community would; “Without community,” Lorde wrote, “there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression” (p. 112). Collective struggle, although imperfect and requiring introspective acknowledgment of difference and privilege, was a significant tool of second- wave feminist social change efforts. The Personal Is Political The central organizing principle of 1970s feminism, that sisterhood is powerful, was paired with the equally important belief that the personal is political. This broad statement had two related tenets: (a) What feels like individual oppression is often a result of systemic and structural conditions and (b) to make social change women must make individual change. Consciousness-raising groups, small groups of women who met to develop local feminist communities, were often encouraged to understand their personal relationships, family lives, and work issues within a political context. In these groups, “women questioned the disciplines and practices of femininity and developed individual and collective resistance to them” (McLaren, 2002, p. 65). Betty Friedan’s (1963) Feminine Mystique was an instrumental text for mainstream second-wave feminism. Friedan’s message helped college-educated middle-class White women view their isolation in a newly suburban United States as a social result of a patriarchy rather than a personal failure. Readers were guided to see the lack of fulfillment they experienced from caring for their families was inevitable in a culture that suppressed their intellect and creative Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power spirits. An individual woman complaining that her husband did no housework could come to understand that her concern was not an individual problem but a result of patriarchal inequities of labor; a woman who was not being promoted in the workplace could move beyond blaming herself for failing at negotiations to fighting for policies such as antidiscrimination laws. Spousal rape, legal in some states until 1993, was no longer seen as a private matter but as within the realm of male sexual violence against women. In all aspects of their lives, women were encouraged to think outside of their discrete circumstances and understand their conditions as part of the structural relations of power that privileged men and masculinity. Feminists’ rejection of aesthetic femininity was, in part, resultant from their understanding of the personal as political. Second-wave feminists challenged the sexual objectification of women both in everyday life and in the media. Mulvey’s (1975) important critique of the “male gaze” argued that through the cinematic lens women’s bodies were seen as erotic objects existing for male viewing pleasure. The camera depicted a male perspective, lingering on female bodies that were positioned as passively available for visual consumption rather than as active and engaged. Some second-wave feminists believed that the objectification of women’s bodies was directly linked to violence against women. Antiporn activists believed that pornography led to a society inured to violence against women and perpetuated the patriarchal control of women (Dines & Jensen, 2008). These feminists believed that the personal experience of violence and oppression was derived in part from the institutionalization of sexist media. On the other end of what came to be known as the “sex wars” were “pro- sex” or “sexpositive” feminists who argued that this condemnation of female sexuality and pornography Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power was an extension of conservative political control over women’s bodies and sexual freedoms (Willis, 1981). They, too, believed that the personal as political was a defining lens for feminism. The personal is political also reframed body dissatisfaction; it was no longer a private struggle but a consequence of being raised within a sexist culture. Beauty culture was understood as a tool of patriarchy and big business “that served men’s personal and political control of women” (Peiss, 1998, p. 261). Beauty culture, they argued, drew women’s attention away from issues of economic, political, and social gain and toward oppressive beauty norms that could never be satisfied (Wolf, 1991). Feminists who chose to let their body hair grow freely or to curb their make-up use furthered critiques against the cosmetic industry leveled by civil rights activists who argued that natural skin color, hair, and beauty should be celebrated rather than whitewashed (Peiss, 1998). The 1968 Atlantic City protest against the Miss America pageant exemplified second-wave feminists’ challenge to the positioning of women as objects of a male gaze. Staking their claim that the personal body was a site of political struggle, feminist activists “filled a trash can with makeup, curlers, hair spray, and crowned a pig as America’s beauty queen” (Peiss, 1998, p. 260). Feminists of color equally embraced the power of the “personal is political,” although they maintained that feminism must continue to complicate the relationship between the public and the private spheres. Aida Hurtado (1989) argued that in communities of color, women’s private lives have always been sites of state or public intervention through welfare, the criminal justice system, and sterilization programs. She argued that the relationship between the private and the political has a different meaning for women of color (Hurtado, 1989). Although White second- wave feminists were becoming aware that the private spheres of beauty culture and Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power household labor were structurally shaped by patriarchal relations of power, feminists of color began to focus on public issues that have private effects, such as racism, school desegregation, prison reform, and voter registration (Hurtado, 1989). Other feminists of color have pointed out that there are often limits to which White feminists are able to intellectualize “the personal is political” when politicizing issues that are outside of their intimate experiences; Angela Davis (2000) noted that White feminists often decry a “greater incidence of misogynist violence in poor communities and communities of color, without necessarily acknowledging the greater extent of police surveillance in these communities—directly and through social service agencies” (p. 2). In other words, Davis was arguing that when there is greater institutional scrutiny into interpersonal relationships in any community, more violence against women will be seen. Feminists of color were shining light on the fact that ignoring the effects of intersectional oppression can sometimes lead to a shallow analysis that overlooks the social, political, and economic inequities that extend beyond gender. The political, then, became much more than public life; it was broadened to include issues such as the body, the home, interpersonal relationships, criminalization, and educational inequity that were previously deemed private. In turn, personal actions served as political statements with social implications. Everyday activities—from childcare and household labor to purchasing food or dieting—could be seen as playing a role in constituting the feminine identity. The way a woman engaged in her activities could be seen as reifying her femininity, acting in resistance, or negotiating feminine oppression. As such, this approach to politics encouraged women to understand that issues in their individual lives were part of a system of gender Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power injustice organized by social relations of power and required a collective struggle for feminist social change. FROM COLLECTIVE TO INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT: CULTURAL CURRENTS THAT USHERED IN THE THIRD WAVE Although women still had many battles ahead of them, young women born after the 1970s grew up in a world that was dramatically different from that of their second-wave forebears. The stories their mothers told them about growing up in a male- dominated society did not always reflect their realities. The education and wage gaps between men and women were closing, and the glass ceiling now had many cracks, if not some holes (Heywood & Drake, 2007). In addition, the number of women who worked outside the home had greatly increased, birth control had been legalized, and Title IX had made gender equity a requirement for all federally funded educational and school-related programs. Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, and Salt n’ Pepa made the Billboard charts singing songs about female sexual desire. Feminist goals of ending all sexist oppression for women had not been met, but girls coming of age after the mid-1980s were entering an adulthood that was visibly different from that of their mothers. This generation did not abandon feminism but based their “wave,” the third wave, on the prevailing political thought of their time. Like most shifts in thought, the move from second wave to third wave and ultimately to girl power feminism cannot be understood solely by examining a chronological flow of events; it is best understood by examining a confluence of overlapping, often contradictory, currents in political thought. The rise of neoliberalism and postmodernism shaped third-wave feminism and Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power the language surrounding the most visible, ongoing activist feminist issues: abortion rights and sexual violence. With neoliberalism’s foundation in individual choice and postmodern- ism’s fundamental belief in shifting truths and anti- essentialism, third-wave feminism tended toward individual action and the sense of a mercurially defined movement. The term third-wave feminism originally emerged from feminists of color who demanded an intersectional politics. The Third Wave: Feminist Perspectives on Race, an unpublished anthology, which was stymied by the financial troubles of a small feminist press, suggested that the third wave was originally begun as a movement to position antiracism as central to feminist discourse (Henry, 2004). By the mid- 1990s, however, the term third wave was largely used to represent a new generation of feminists (Henry, 2004). Third-wave feminism initially referred to those born between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s but has continued to develop into a term that applies to a political generation that was raised after many of the demands of second-wave feminism were built into policy and feminist values were made common- place in mainstream popular culture (Mann, 2013). Scholars routinely identify two distinct shifts in political thought as foundational for the move toward a new discourse of autonomous choice in feminism. At the same time as neoliberalism was ushered into Western nations in the 1980s and became the era’s guiding sociopolitical and economic theory, in colleges across the country many young women and men were being raised on a philosophical diet of postmodernism. Both of these philosophical turns had an influence on feminism and conceptualizations of choice, justice, and political strategy. Neoliberalism and postmodernism shaped the key issues and strategies of what became thirdwave feminism. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Neoliberalism and Postmodernism The term neoliberalism can be confusing because although people commonly think of liberal as left- leaning, progressive, or aligned with Democratic Party values, it is used to define a very conservative concept embraced by right-wing Republicans. A 1930s economic theory, invigorated by economic and political conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, neoliberalism is an approach to the political economy that “proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (Harvey, 2005, p. 2). The 1980s saw the rise of neoliberal government spearheaded by President Ronald Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Neoliberal ideology supports a political project of market supremacy, privatization of social programs, and deregulation of market activities. Shunning social welfare, neoliberalism positions the free market and individuals as pinnacles of civilization. In neoliberalism, at the center of the free market is a free self who is constructed through “maximum material gain and profit” (Chen, 2013, p. 443) rather than through democratic social protections to life, liberty, and property. The neoliberal emphasis on personal responsibility leads to increasing attempts at selfimprovement and self-monitoring (Giddens, 1991). Attention is turned from improving society and creating a path to social justice to improving the self and creating a path for personal success. Because individuals are understood to be logical and self-regulating, their choices are understood to be autonomous and deliberative. Though many feminists in the United States protested Reagan’s cuts to social welfare programs, neoliberal philosophy filtered into mainstream feminism and other social movements. This conservative philosophy changed the Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power way in which choice was theorized and discussed. The ability to self-determine was no longer a goal to strive for. Instead, the enactment of choice (by already free individuals) became the key political strategy (Chen, 2013). In a feminism influenced by neoliberalism, choice is not understood as limited by patriarchy, sexism, and inequality. To achieve success, women are expected to be self-determined, without consideration for their experiences within social, economic, and political contexts; failure to succeed is evidence of a personal flaw rather than of systemic inequality and the reduction of government support (Gonick, 2006). Therefore, the personal is no longer tied to the political. One is led to believe that personal empowerment, not social change, will end inequality. Rosalind Gill (2007) has drawn on Marx and Engels to argue that neoliberalism fails to acknowledge that “girls and young women do make choices . . . but they do not do so in conditions of their own making” (p. 72). In other words, neoliberalism masks the ways in which power relations structure and constrain individual choice making. Where the “personal is political” had previously asked women to consider their individual problems as emblematic of a structural oppression, in the absence of a belief in structural constraints, the concept is now “reversed to mean that everything including the political is actually personal and individual” (Chen, 2013, p. 445). In neoliberalism, feminism takes on a performative rather than activist stance and becomes an individual act rather than a collective movement (see Chapter 11, this volume). Where second-wave feminists, rooted in the personal is political, fought against inequality and normative femininity, third-wave feminists used choice rather than critique as the form of redress. Although quite different from neoliberalism, postmodernism—which also emerged as a guiding theory for young women coming of age in the 1980s and beyond—had a significant Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power influence on feminist thought and practice. Postmodernism is a philosophy that challenges traditional Western approaches to thought and their emphasis on universal truth and dualism (i.e., right–wrong, good–bad). Development of postmodern theory began in the 1960s; in the 1980s theorists, mostly French, began to write prolifically on the topic and apply it widely through- out academic disciplines. Postmodern thinking was in vogue and read widely at most universities throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Within social sciences and humanities, postmodernism questions the idea that all knowledge and relations of power can be understood through their relationship to overarching systems or structures. Rather than accepting metanarratives—theories that are generalized and all defining—about the functions of truth and power, postmodernism seeks to replace normative systems of thought with theories of fragmented, mercurial, and incomplete knowledge and power. In postmodern thought, truth is not something that simply exists and is waiting to be revealed; truth is constructed and ever changing. Similarly, in postmodern thought, power is not fixed and immutable; it is networked and shifting (Foucault, 1975/1995; Lyotard, 1984). These postmodern theories about lack of universality, multiple truths, and shifting power relations mirrored many of the conversations feminists were having about intersecting identities, the multiple experiences of living as a woman, and power relations within feminist institutions (Weedon, 1999). Since the 1970s, second-wave feminists had been writing about the ways in which gender, race, class, and sexuality worked concurrently to shape the experience of oppression, but it was in the late 1980s, with Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) coining of the term intersectionality, that this area of analysis became institutionalized within the academy (Nash, 2011). Like critiques of feminism that challenged a homogeneous female identity and created a Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power conversation about the ways in which race, class, and sexuality intersected with gender to create varied oppressive gendered conditions, postmodernism emphasized a belief in multiple, positional truths and the need for “polyvocality,” or multiple voices (Haraway, 1991; Mann, 2013). Postmodernism’s critique of grand theories that sought to universalize all experience led some young women to see feminism as a “disciplinary and regulatory discourse that restricts individual freedom and sits authoritatively in judgment” (Henry, 2004, p. 39). Despite the fact that many feminists who focused on intersectionality and difference continued to advocate for a unified movement, feminism was represented by some as “ethnocentric and overly concerned with imposing similarity upon women’s difference” (Budgeon, 2011, p. 5). Furthermore, feminism was popularized as antisex and rooted in a victim paradigm (Budgeon, 2015; Reger, 2014). Moreover, postmodernism’s distrust in group identities, which it saw as essentialist and therefore in need of deconstruction, and in power, which was seen as webbed and ever shifting, led many young women to see a collective social change movement as an unachievable, and even undesirable, goal (Brown, 2003; Budgeon, 2011). Both neoliberalism and postmodernism, along with co-optation of feminism by the consumer market, have influenced the shift from a politics of collectivity and structural change to one of individual choice and identity performance. Further understanding of third-wave feminist politics shines a light on the subsequent cooptation of its hallmark strategies, critiques, language, and visual codes by the market into what is known as girl power. Heywood and Drake (2007) argued that growing up in a postmodern and neoliberal era of “relative gender equality in the context of economic downward mobility” (p. 118), globalization, deregulation and decentralization of power, third-wave feminists extended Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power their focus beyond traditional women’s issues. Issues such as racism, heterosexism, ableism, environmental protection, and economic justice took on greater import for feminists of the third wave (Findlen, 1995; Garrison, 2000). However, the fight for a woman’s rights to make decisions regarding her own repro- duction and sexuality continued to be central issues for young women. My Body, My Choice: Third-Wave Feminism and Individual Choice as a Defining Strategy Despite the many achievements of second-wave feminism, the fight for reproductive rights was beginning again in the 1990s. For 15 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, antichoice activists had attempted to overturn or block the decision through the courts, Congress, and vigilantism, but the Supreme Court consistently rejected attempts to minimize access to abortion (Faludi, 1991). Then, in 1989, the Supreme Court upheld Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a Missouri state law that restricted the use of state funds, facilities, and public employees in performing abortions. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the high court made it legal for states to require preabortion counseling, parental consent for minors, and waiting periods for those seeking abortion. These challenges to reproductive rights invigorated many young women to consider their relationship to feminism and join 600,000 others in Washington, DC, to protest encroachment upon these rights (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000). Although reproductive rights activists of the 1960s and 1970s had celebrated the guarantee of what they considered to be a right, the concept of choice became the hallmark of the renewed movement. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power According to historian Rickie Solinger (2002), in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement, the equal rights movement for women, and other progressive movements for equality, choice was a more easily digestible term than rights. She argued that the rhetoric of choice is “the language of shopping . . . of options in the marketplace,” a less threatening concept than reproductive freedom (Solinger, 2002, p. 5). Likewise, reproductive rights activists of color challenged the centrality of choice in the fight for reproductive freedom, arguing that it did not fully address the economic and political structures that constrain the reproductive lives of poor women and women of color. For these women, choice is mitigated by the poverty that affects their experiences of bearing and raising children (Nelson, 2003). However, the neoliberal language of choice prevailed and, as the most public feminist issue of the decade, individual reproductive choice, or “my body, my choice,” became a framework through which many young women understood feminism. Third-wave feminists were also greatly influenced by Anita Hill’s testimony to the Senate during Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Hill charged Thomas with sexually harassing her while she had been his professional subordinate. Although Thomas was appointed, Hill’s accusations brought a heightened awareness of the issue of workplace sexual harassment and the underrepresentation of women in the Congress that confirmed him (Henry, 2004; Wolf, 1991). The hearings were said to have shaken “latent feminists out of their slumber” when they realized that “some of the rights they had taken for granted were tentative at best” (Siegel, 2007, p. 112). Third wavers took up the issues of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and the end of rape culture but, using a “my body, my choice” philosophy, often highlighted different strategies for social change than their second-wave predecessors. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Many vocal second wavers had argued that to abolish sexual harassment and violence against women, feminists should adopt an androgynous or asexual style and fight to ban pornography, which was cast as the most sexist media form and an instigator of violence against women (Dines & Jensen, 2008). They also supported passing stricter harassment and rape laws. Antirape activists argued against victim blaming and maintained that women should be able to dress however they desired with- out the risk of being raped or being vilified in the courts that were supposed to be convicting the perpetrators (Brownmiller, 1975). Supported by neoliberal choice discourses and postmodern understandings of power relations, many third-wave feminists viewed critiques of female sexuality as oppressive and stifling. Some began to feel that feminism was an oppressive doc- trine that, like patriarchy, was inhibiting their freedoms. They argued that this second-wave approach to sexuality and femininity was regulatory and disciplining (Henry, 2004). Instead, third wavers claimed the right to celebrate female sexuality on its own terms; they identified as sex positive and critiqued what they believed to be a victim mentality in second-wave feminism (Budgeon, 2015). They celebrated the vagina and women’s sexual pleasure through Eve Ensler’s 1998 Vagina Monologues, which has become a staple on college campuses around the United States, and the proliferation of feminist pornography. Alongside sexual choice, third wavers staked a claim for sartorial choice and rejected the asexual attire of second wavers. In one of the first third- wave anthologies, To Be Real, Naomi Wolf (1995) admitted to being infatuated by the fantasy of the Victorian wedding dress, and Jennifer Allyn and David Allyn (1995) declared that play with beauty products did not have to be antithetical to feminist activism. Writing in their influential text Manifesta: Young Women, Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Feminism, and the Future, third wavers Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards (2000) explained that feminists of their generation condemn normativity but not femininity, which they understand to be a gendered performance that is enacted consciously and is, at various times, celebratory, playful, and ironic (p. 60). Girlhood, although seen by second-wave feminists as the most belittling female position, was embraced by third wavers as “raucous, resistant, sexual, [and] ageless” (Scanlon, 2009, p. 135). Many third wavers interpreted their pleasure of the feminine as campy and ironic as well as sexy and decorative, but not as indicative of their exploitation by men or a commodity market (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000; see also Chapter 12, this volume). Choice was at the center of this challenge to second-wave feminism’s tenuous relationship with femininity; in neoliberal fashion, third-wave feminists claimed the right to choose their own feminist and feminine expressions. These were their bodies, and it was their choice to adorn them and sexualize them as they wished. Finally, third-wave feminism often proposes the living of a feminist life as feminist action. Some third wavers cite a sense of entitlement as a result of being raised after secondwave feminism (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000), and others have claimed feminism as their birthright rather than their struggle to carry on (Henry, 2004). In third-wave feminism, one could be perceived as a feminist, sometimes unintentionally, simply by being a woman performing with a strong persona (Siegel, 2007). This woman who lived her feminist life was not only popular among third-wave activists but was also the most visible feminist in popular culture. From its earliest representation on television, feminism, like other social movements, was watered down for ingestion by mainstream audiences. Feminist storylines focused on the successes of individual characters rather than on collective feminist struggles, and social Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power problems were solved by changes in individual women’s lifestyles (such as new jobs and positions of power) rather than by policy changes or revaluations of relations of power (Dow, 1996). Lifestyle feminism (Dow, 1996), or what I have termed feminism performed (Zaslow, 2009), reduced feminism to an individual cultural identity rather than a political movement with collective strategy. Third-wave feminism was based in a critical thought informed by second-wave feminism, intersectionality, neoliberalism, and postmodernism. For many young women, the chant “my body, my choice” took on a meaning beyond the right to make one’s reproductive decisions; “my body, my choice” came to mean that they were already free individuals who could determine the political meaning of their own bodily expressions outside of historical frameworks, institutional limitations, or dominant ideologies about gender and sexuality. Although third wavers discussed and debated how to fight for “my body, my choice” throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the consumer market happily adopted the language and visual codes of this new feminism. These new approaches to feminist politics were easily adopted by the consumer market, where they were watered down, depoliticized, and coined “girl power.” Girl power has been made into a fashionable visual and rhetorical accessory that individuals can put on and take off at will rather than a political movement in which women unite to challenge structural inequities. Girl power, the most visible feminism today, advances public conversations about gender, but as a feminism diluted by neoliberalism and the commodity market, it cannot end gender injustice (Zaslow, 2009). INCORPORATION: GIRL POWER AND THE MARKETING OF CHOICE Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power For a decade before Miley Cyrus and other popular celebrities, teen magazines, and television characters began embracing the label feminist and using it to explain the choices they make about their bodies, feminine self-representations, and work, popular journalism contemplated the end of feminism. In 1998 Time magazine asked if feminism was dead and columnist Ginia Bellafante wrote, “Some would argue that . . . [feminism is] dead because it has won.” After all, the Lilith Fair had become the first mainstream all-female rock festival, and it had been nearly 25 years since Mary Richards graduated from trying to “make it after all” to being promoted to producer of the fictional news program on which she worked. It was no longer unusual to see television shows in which a female character’s work was a true source of satisfaction and purpose rather than a placeholder until she found a husband (Dow, 1996). Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena the Warrior Princess, physically powerful female leads, were saving the world from evil. On Sex and the City, a show that celebrated female friendship and female sexual desire, Samantha Jones had declared that she was going to forget romance and start having “sex like a man” without emotion because “the right guy is an illusion.” She claimed that at this historical moment when “women have . . . as much money and power as men plus the equal luxury of treating men as sex objects.... [Women] can start living [their] lives” (Star & Seidelman, 1998). Feminist concepts had become mainstream but watered down for corporate sponsorship and consumption. However, once this discourse was identified as a marketable commodity, girl power became its popular manifestation. Even as journalists depicted feminism as having succeeded in what it set out to achieve, girl power feminism became a trendy selling technique and the capitalist incorporation of feminist dissent. When Adweek, Brandweek, and Fortune all declared the late 1990s to be the era of girl power, the woman of girl power feminism came into focus Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power (Zaslow, 2009). She was the “Independent Woman,” described by Destiny’s Child, who “bought her own diamonds” and declared her power through conspicuous displays of financial success and sexual self-determination (Knowles, Rooney, Olivier, & Barnes, 2000). She was Christina Aguilera making the choice to be a sexual subject while appropriating the cloak of objectified femininity. She was, and still is, the embodiment of feminism shrink-wrapped in femininity; she was a choice-making agent who was equally committed to adhering to the rules of beauty culture. Empowerment has become an identity marker for characters and performers, and young women’s attention has shifted from a politics of change to a celebration of achievements. Drawing on neoliberalism, girl power encourages girls and women to adopt a paradigm of choice as they construct their feminine and feminist identities. The creation of opportunities for choice has always been a feature of liberal feminism, but girl power ushered in a new kind of choice. In girl power, choice is no longer something to be sought as the goal of a quest for justice; choice is not something to be fought for. Rather, choice has become an unproblematic, unfettered badge of entitlement that women can claim to enact with the social and cultural capital they inherited from their foremothers (Budgeon, 2011). In this popular discourse, structural inequity is made invisible, and women’s choice to be girly, sexy, powerful, professional, or any combination of these is celebrated as always possible. Feminist critiques of normative beauty culture become disarmed and trivialized by the incorporation of feminist rhetoric and imagery into cosmetic and fashion advertising and magazine editorials (Lamb & Brown, 2006). Girl power mainstreams an important counternormative discourse about gender that celebrates agency, female sexual desire and pleasure, and conscious identity construction and performance (Zaslow, 2009). Yet, at its core, girl power’s Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power foundation is rooted in a symbolic feminism that reeks of individualism and relativism and that threatens to void feminism of its political consequence. Further- more, it is a distraction from the ongoing injustices that require collectivist social change, including racism, global and local poverty, homophobia, sexual violence, workplace discrimination, and attacks on reproductive rights. Social movements, like feminism, have long been incorporated into social norms in order for the market to contain and leverage oppositional thought, particularly when it is a challenge to the growth of profits (Goldman, Heath, & Smith, 1991). For teen girls and women, girl power aims to swap oppositional consciousness rooted in collective struggle and critique of systemic sexism for individualized symbolic confidence and self-determination. Repackaged as girl power, feminism is a performance, not a political stance; young women learn that calling oneself a feminist no longer requires one to commit to ending sexist oppression for all women but simply to declare a feminist identification and to wave the flag of self-determination (Zaslow, 2009). EXPRESSIONS OF GIRL POWER: DOWNSIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND COLLECTIVE SOCIAL CHANGE In 2015, actor Jennifer Lawrence wrote, “When I found out that I was getting paid less [for the movie American Hustle] than the lucky people with dicks, I didn’t get mad at Sony, I got mad at myself for negotiating poorly.” The editor of the feminist pop culture newsletter that published her remarks called Lawrence “a living argument for using wage transparency to close the gender pay gap” (Grose, 2015) despite the actor’s declaration that the wage disparity lay in her own Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power inadequacies. This murky understanding of gender injustice and its necessary redress is apropos in the neoliberal age of Sheryl Sandberg’s (2013) Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Self-identified as a feminist, Sandberg suggested that individual will is the most significant change required for gender equity. Sandberg identified success not as systemic and structural equality for women of all race, class, and sexual backgrounds but as “making the best choices we can” (p. 137). Echoing this sentiment, when Seventeen magazine defined feminism for its teen readership in April 2014 as “being confident, embracing your femininity however you choose to, and just being you” (Moscatello, 2014, p. 122), the implication was that individual responsibility is at the root of feminist identity. Taken together, these three texts shed light on several characteristics of millennial girl power media culture disguised as feminism. Girl power is both disciplinary and relativistic. Women and girls are, at once, asked to self-improve and self- regulate and invited to apply the term feminist to all and any of their actions so that girl power turns a political movement founded on collective action, and the understanding of the political nature of personal struggles, into a readily available identity that individuals are responsible for enacting. A girl or woman who cannot find enough confidence to declare her empowerment has not been failed by a “girl poisoning culture” as Pipher (1994, p. 12) suggested in the previous decade, nor by an “enemy within,” or the internalization of “patriarchal thinking to see ourselves as inferior to men” as hooks (2000, p. 14) suggested more recently, but by her own lack of will and the making of inadequate choices. Individual Choice and Personal Responsibility: GoldieBlox’s Inspirational Toys Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power In neoliberal girl power feminism, structural and systemic inequities such as racism, classism, heterosexism, and sexism are overlooked in favor of individual acts that demonstrate a version of female empowerment. Consumers are taught that their individual purchasing decisions can mark them as feminists and provide the necessary opposition to normative gender role expectations to make the world different for their daughters. When GoldieBlox, a toy company founded by Stanford engineering graduate Debbie Sterling that aims to “inspire the future generation of female engineers,” introduced its new action figure, the ad warned consumer parents that “fashion dolls teach girls to value beauty over brains.” The ad depicted a dystopian world in which Big Sister repeated the phrase “You are beauty and beauty is perfection” as dolls clad in pink were pumped out of a factory and real girls, from a variety of racial backgrounds, wearing the same pink outfit, walked along a life-sized conveyor belt (“GoldieBlox vs. the Big Sister Machine,” 2014). One girl wears red sneakers and overalls; her long blonde hair is wild, and as she steps off the conveyor belt she reaches into her tool belt to pull out a hammer. The normative girls on the factory belt smile and shed their pink high heels as the heroine symbolically smashes the television screen and shuts down Big Sister. The message is not simply that girls introduced to building toys have a greater chance of becoming interested in science and engineering but that buying and playing with consumer goods such as the GoldieBlox action figure are a form of rebel- lion and can challenge social norms surrounding sexism and racism. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power GoldieBlox is laudable for introducing a new generation of girls to a consumer world that includes them in engineering play. At the same time, a feminism grounded in individual successes and achievements is captured in both the advertisement and the toy company’s mission. The ad does not depict a social uprising, but one girl who breaks free, thereby liberating all. Likewise, the mission of the company suggests that gender inequality in the field of engineering will happen on an individual level rather than on an institutional one. GoldieBlox’s goal to inspire the future generation of female engineers by helping it develop an early interest in building and construction suggests that it is girls’ waning interest in engineering that keeps them out of the field. However, research has shown that the field’s gender inequality is fueled by the male- dominated workplace culture that undermines and belittles women and does not support a work–life balance sought or needed by many women (Fouad, 2014). Implied, too, is the requirement of self- regulation; a parent who buys a Barbie doll rather than a GoldieBlox action figure has failed in her self-discipline to provide her daughter with the right tools to succeed. Relativism: Seventeen Magazine’s “You Do You” Feminism In 1984, hooks noted the risks of relativity in defining feminism. She argued that if, as Carmen Vasquez had claimed, “feminism in America has come to mean anything you like, honey,” and the focus of feminism has turned to individual gains, freedoms, and choices, then feminism becomes “apolitical” and is rendered meaningless (pp. 17–23). If “any- thing goes” feminism was a concern in the early 1980s, it has only become more pernicious. In April 2015, blogger Mariella Mosthof wrote that “‘You do you’ may have origins in black vernacular, Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power but…the phrase has undoubtedly been embraced as a tenet of radically inclusive, intersectional feminism” (para. 3). She argued that “You do you,” in a feminist framework, means not being dismissive of anyone’s experiences or choices—it delivers us from all the trappings of being a “bad feminist.” Are you a feminist who’s also a stay-at-home mom? You’re a great feminist! Are you a feminist who likes to get tied up by her boyfriend and called a slut? You’re a great feminist, too! You know why? Because YOU CAN DO YOU and still advocate for the social, political, and economic equality of people of all genders! (para. 4) Although Mosthof (2015) advocates for a political feminism, it is coated in relativism, asking one to view all acts as choices and therefore as feminist. Seventeen magazine, citing “You do you” as one of three “new rules of feminism” in its April 2014 issue, told readers that feminism is “not just some giant movement—it’s personal” and can be defined as being true to yourself, “thinking you can do what- ever you want,” and “having the power to define who you are” (Moscatello, 2014, pp. 122–123). In girl power feminism, a feminist makes choices in her own interest, without thinking about the political implications of those choices or about the social structures within which those choices are made; the “commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires” (hooks, 1984, p. 24) is moot when society is already imagined as ripe for self- determination. Collectivity, too, becomes irrelevant when feminism means “going for your [italics added] dreams no matter what they are” (“What Makes You Powerful?”, 2014, p. 97) rather than “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” for all Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power women (hooks, 1984, p. 24). Likewise, the political becomes murky when anything can be called a feminist decision as long as it means “just being you” (Moscatello, 2014, p. 122). A neoliberal politics of relativism and choice shifts feminism from a political movement to an identity marker. Sartorial Feminism: Lenny’s Perfect-Fitting Pair of Trousers In the same issue in which Lenny celebrated Jennifer Lawrence’s taking personal responsibility for the institutional sexism that led to her being paid less than her male costars, it published “Get It: Second-Wave Style,” written by Laia Garcia (2015), the newsletter’s associate editor. In the article, also featured on Cosmopolitan and Elle magazines’ websites, Garcia used photos from Cynthia MacAdams’s 1977 photography book Emergence to offer fashion inspiration to contemporary women. In her collection, MacAdams took pictures of women, many of them involved in the feminist movement, whom Kate Millet, writing in the book’s introduction, described as “a new kind of woman” (as cited in Garcia, 2015). These were women who were not positioned for the male gaze, as Mulvey (1975) had written about 2 years earlier, and were not just static images waiting for the viewer to define them [but]. . . have their own stories. Whether they are posing for the photograph or seemingly caught mid- smoke, they are active women, they are alive. They are not stereotypically beautiful, because they have rendered the stereotypes useless. (Garcia, 2015, para. 2) Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Garcia (2015) said she “fell in love with” (para. 3) these women and that readers “might inject some of their sartorial flair into our wardrobe and, in the process, absorb some of that power” (para. 4). Offering three photos, Garcia introduces readers to Cheryl Swannack, coordinator of a women’s art building; Colleen McKay, owner of a feminist restaurant; and Jeri Chocolate Harris, a lineswoman. Whereas a White Swannack1 is revered by Garcia for her power suit and her 1970s-style wide lapel, African American Harris, sporting her perfect-fitting trousers and “a tool belt slung low on her hips” (para. 3) is fetishized by Garcia, who fantasizes about Harris “climbing a telephone pole and feeling the breeze on her face while doing a job that to this day is mostly held by men” (para. 3). A few months later, Garcia (2016) again invokes feminism in her Lenny style article. In this one, Garcia suggests that one of three ways that women can get style inspiration for the new year is by embracing their “feminist narcissism” and resolves “[I will] envelop myself in the things that give me the most power in the moment, indulge in the things that make me feel good without guilt” because, she reasons, “If my body is a battleground, then maybe I can turn it into a weapon” (para. 8) In another of three style inspirations, Garcia invokes Tawney Kitaen, an actress who is known for her roles in videos for the 1980s band Whitesnake. In the video that Garcia references, Kitaen serves no narrative function. Rather, Kitaen is positioned in the video as eye candy for male sexual pleasure. For the majority of the video, she wears a sheer, gauzy white dress and rolls around doing splits on the tops of two luxury cars; in 1 Swannack appears to be White, though her race and ethnicity are undocumented in the literature about her. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power other scenes, she preens at the camera while hanging out of the car or kisses the band’s lead singer. Although Kitaen can be seen as a hood ornament in this video, Garcia understands the actress to be a role model who “wholeheartedly embraced her sexuality” as evidenced by her “just having fun, showing off her gymnastics abilities on top of a car,” “unlike other music-video girls whose bodies become just another prop in the scene” (para. 9). Garcia says that Kitaen is a style inspiration because “on Tawny days” Garcia does not allow herself to engage in self-hatred of her body or concerns about the appropriateness of her clothes. After all, Garcia argues, “There’s no time to think things like that while you’re lying across the hood of a car with one leg carefully bent and the other gracefully extended” (para. 10). Garcia’s essays are emblematic of the recent relationship between fashion and feminism, in which both fashion magazines and mainstream newspapers often trivialize feminism as a hook to grab readers’ attention and invoke women’s consumption as a reward for their hard work (Mendes, 2012; Sternadori & Hagseth, 2014). Fashion becomes another element of lifestyle feminism, in which one can identify with the movement not as an activist but as the wearer of clothing that empowers. Although fashion and feminism have long had a relationship (Fischer, 1997), and feminism need not adopt an antibeauty ideology (Scott, 2006), a contemporary neoliberal narrative of feminism as fashion has come to represent a depoliticized personal style, boiled down to a look that can imbue a woman with power (Groeneveld, 2009; Sternadori & Hagseth, 2014). This depiction of feminism as “the perfect pair of trousers” can paint feminism as “unthreatening and minimizes some of its ‘uglier’—yet important—dimensions: anger, criticality, and dissent,” while also establishing feminism as an individual marker of a struggle that has already been fought (Groeneveld, 2009, pp. 188–189). Feminism becomes a Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power performative cloak that can be put on and taken off on a whim rather than a fight to change social structures and power relations (Zaslow, 2009). Moreover, “commodity feminism” ignores the intersectionalities of race and class, thus defusing a politics of collective struggle (Goldman et al., 1991). Feminism as fashion focuses on style and rarely, if ever, explores the politics of production in which women (many of whom are of color) work in low-wage nonunionized factories in poor working conditions around the globe. Although choice and power are celebrated in articles on feminist fashion, garment workers’ physical and mental health is rendered invisible (Groeneveld, 2009; Sternadori & Hagseth, 2014). Worse yet, feminist fashion journalism can fetishize class and race, as seen in Garcia’s (2015) piece with respect to Harris, an African American, blue-collar worker whose style can be emulated by readers who purchase the pair of $125 jeans to which Garcia links. Although Garcia noted that Harris was in a position typically held by men, she ignored the feminist issues of racial and social institutional injustice that leave Harris doing manual labor while the two other White style icons have the privilege to organize their professional lives around their feminist politics: one the coordinator of a feminist art building and the other the proprietor of a feminist restaurant. CHOOSING TO BE THE OBJECT: BEYONCÉ’S FEMINIST POLE DANCE AND THE SLUTWALK MOVEMENT Rosalind Gill (2003) argued that one of the markers of neoliberal feminism is a “knowing and deliberate re-sexualisation and re-commodification of women’s bodies” in which there is “a shift from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification in constructions of femininity in the media and popular culture” (p. 101). Gill aptly defended her position that this new sexualization is Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power neither empowering nor feminist: (a) only heterosexual, thin, normatively beautiful women are positioned as desiring and desirable sexual subjects; (b) the self-discipline and regulation required to make or keep oneself looking like the normative desiring and desirable sexual subject is rendered invisible in popular discourse and benefits a capitalist market but not agentic women; and (c) women’s choice is seen as the driving force for resexualization so that a critique of institutionalized sexism becomes seemingly superfluous. In a relativistic feminism, anything can be called feminist if it is declared so, but Gill posited that sexual subjectification is not an act of feminist agency but a new form of policing that arises out of the internalization of the male gaze. Sexual subjectification has become a dangerous new manifestation of patriarchal ideology that is no less pernicious than objectification. Despite Gill’s critique, girl power feminism continues to hail sexual expression and the ownership of one’s sexuality as liberating (Zaslow, 2009). In 2014, after the release of her fifth studio album, Beyoncé performed a 16-minute musical medley at the MTV Video Music Awards. A detailed analysis of three of the songs she performed, their lyrics, and their corresponding music videos is illustrative of the ways in which this sexual owner- ship, while celebrated as feminist, often contradicts itself and lacks an appreciation for collective social change. Beyoncé began her performance with a rendition of the song “Drunk in Love” (Knowles, Fisher, et al., 2013), known to fans as a testament to the sexual pleasure Beyoncé experiences in her relationship with her husband, rapper Jay Z, who is a featured artist on the track. In the lyrics, and the video that depicts the couple enjoying each other’s bodies, Beyoncé is a woman empowered with the knowledge that she can express her own desire and pleasure; unlike women Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power in songs before the second wave, Beyoncé boldly declares her sexual appetite. Beyoncé challenges normative beauty to a degree. She is a Black woman with curves that test the thin ideal. At the same time, she is heavily made up, has perfectly tweezed eyebrows, is clad in a bikini, and rolls around in the water in a way that is not atypical of the femininity constructed for the male (porno- graphic) gaze. Jay Z’s featured rap also highlights the couple’s lust for one another but toward the end of his verse he declares, “I’m Ike Turner . . . no I don’t play / ‘Now eat the cake, Anna Mae,’ said ‘Eat the cake, Anna Mae!’,” which refers to a scene in Tina Turner’s biopic when her abusive husband forced her to eat cake during one of his jealous rages. Despite the song’s overwhelmingly positive message of a mutually fulfilling sexual relationship, Jay Z’s proclamation of himself as a violent, coercive partner in his relationship mitigates, to a great extent, the song’s message of consensual sexual joy. During Beyoncé’s MTV Music Awards performance, she is sitting on bleachers, surrounded Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power by nine women who are lying on their shoulders with their legs in the air so that their heads are obscured, singing about the erotic pleasure she shares with her husband. As she sings agentic lyrics of subjectivity, she performs in front of these nine faceless women, who are objectified in gold unitards, wearing only black bras and thongs; along with Beyoncé, they slowly spread and bend their legs throughout the song. Beyoncé may be a sexual agent, but these female props on stage with her are not. When Beyoncé transitions into the next song, “Partition” (Knowles, Nash, Timberlake, et al., 2013), she begins by dancing on the phallic pedestal she uses in the song’s video. She then moves to an area of the stage with five stripper poles and four other women all clad in skin-toned undergarments that simulate their nakedness. “Partition” similarly develops the narrative of a sexually desirous Beyoncé. The song tells the story of Beyoncé and Jay Z in a limousine asking the driver to “roll up the partition please” because they are going to have a sexual encounter in the back seat. The song’s lyrics focus slightly more on male satisfaction, highlighting the fact that “‘yonce on her knees” but also that Beyoncé is focused on Jay Z’s pleasure as she repeatedly sings to her husband, “I just wanna be the girl you like.” In the video, Beyoncé performs for her husband, first at a stripper pole and later in a cage with an animal print projected on her body. Sex- positive feminists have long decried the wholesale feminist critique of sex work but do remain critical of work and imagery that is exploitative (Miller- Young, 2013). The cage and the animal print both harken back to a stereotypical depiction of African American women that is laden with racist ideologies about the need to contain Black women’s wild and uncontrollable sexuality. Beyoncé’s consent to the use of this imagery complicates the interpretation of it as exploitative. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power However, Beyoncé’s discussion of her choice to create a video in which she danced on a stripper pole illustrates the self-disciplinary nature of sexual subjectification that defines sexy within a limited range of body sizes and shapes: I was 195 pounds when I gave birth...I worked crazily to get my body back. I wanted to show my body. I wanted to show that you can have a child and you can work hard and you can get your body back . . . I know that there’s so many women that feel the same thing after they give birth. You can have your child and you can still have fun and still be sexy and still have dreams and still live for yourself . . . I’m not embarrassed about it, and I don’t feel like I have to protect that side of me because I do believe that sexuality is a power we all have. (Heinzerling, Burke, Kirsten, & Hugo, 2013) Though in the lyrics and videos for other songs Beyoncé focuses on self-esteem and bucking normative beauty standards, in “Partition”—and in the documentary in which she describes it— Beyoncé does not highlight the beauty of the maternal body or the concept that women can each find beauty within themselves. Instead, she showcases a body that can be regulated to hide the aftermath of pregnancy not only for the self but also for a gaze by others. It is in this disciplined body, one that is required to parade its skill and its success, rather than a liberated one, that one finds the “promise of power” (Gill, 2003, p. 104). Beyoncé’s music awards performance moves directly from pole dancing to another stage area, in which an edited version of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED talk “We Should All Be Feminists” lights up one word at a time on a video wall. Preparing to sing “Flawless” (Knowles, Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Nash, Hollis, & Reel, 2013), widely known as a feminist anthem because of its use of Adichie’s definition of feminism, Beyoncé claims her identity as a feminist standing tall and silhouetted in front of the sign as the word feminist lights up. This image works well with the song she is performing; in the lyrics, Beyoncé sings, “You wake up flawless,” suggesting that women do not need to create a self outside of who they are when they rise. She celebrates a powerful female voice and natural, human beauty in the lyrics “My sister told me I should speak my mind and say I look so good tonight.” In the TED talk that is sampled in the song, Adichie argues that society should not pit girls against one another for male attention, teach girls that their greatest ambition should be marriage, curb girls’ goals for success, or enforce a sexual double standard in which girls are punished for sexual expression and action. The song quotes Adichie’s definition of a feminist as “the person who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.” In the performance, however, Beyoncé has remixed the song, as well as Adichie’s talk, to highlight the concept of powerful female sexuality as central to the definition of feminism. A phrase much less significant in the full TED Talk and on the song’s audio recording, “We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are,” is repositioned so that it is the first line uttered from Adichie’s mouth after Beyoncé completes her pole dance.2 The remix has also altered the format of the song so that the definition of feminist is followed by a portion of the song in which Beyoncé reminds other women, “I know when you were little girls / You dreamt of being in my world / Don’t forget it, don’t forget it / Respect that, bow down bitches.” In Beyoncé’s remixed performance, 2 This line is a little more than half way through Adichie’s 30-minute speech and line 22 of the 25 lines Beyoncé quoted in the song’s recording. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Adichie’s words, decrying competition (“We raise girls to see each other as competitors . . . for the attention of men”) are over- shadowed by the singer’s lyrical and visual depiction of powerful sexuality as a competitive tool. Beyoncé’s feminist message is at once empowering and disciplinary. She marks herself as subject while positioning other women’s bodies as objects. She fetishizes the striptease without ever discussing—either visually or lyrically—the class and race realities of most erotic dancers, who generally are the working poor or—worse—trafficked women. Also, Beyoncé is a highly paid African American woman whose sexuality appears to be self-defined (Weidhase, 2015), yet she regulates her body to hide maternal development so that she can return to a normative sexual figure. If self-defined, however, why do she and so many other freely choosing women “invariably end up making the same choice prescribed by normative culture . . . the sexy, eroticized and fashionably adorned female bodily charm that has always been promoted by patriarchy and capitalism?” (Chen, 2013, p. 443). In girl power, Beyoncé’s sexualized selfpresentation appears to be chosen in a free marketplace of identity positions and can be celebrated as feminist; critiques that question the political nature of her performance can be shut down by the relativism inherent in a “you do you” feminist culture. Sexual agency and empowerment often become the sole defining characteristics of a feminist in the era of girl power. Even feminist activist movements that emerged outside of commercial girl power position the expression of female sexual sartorial choice as defining. In 2011, when a Toronto police office gave a speech at a college campus suggesting that women could avoid sexual assault if they did not dress like “sluts,” activists created protests against sexual violence and victim blaming in the form of “SlutWalks” in major cities around North Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power America as well as parts of Europe, Asia, and South America. Building on the “Take Back the Night” movement, SlutWalk activists reclaim the word slut and the sexual attire associated with promiscuity and the male gaze as they call for an end to rape culture (Reger, 2014). Although scholars recognize the political potential of SlutWalk’s critical thought and activism, their optimism is tempered by the focus on the individual and on choice (Budgeon, 2011). Some have argued that protests such as SlutWalk, which aim to reclaim the female body, are neither addressing intersectionality nor challenging patriarchal norms in their activism (Miriam, 2012; O’Keefe, 2014). As Miriam (2012) has asked, “If the choice of sexual selfpresentation for women were such a free, unconstrained choice, why does it seem to come in only one flavor, namely, some preconceptualized variant of the patriarchal construct of ‘slut’?” (p. 263). These appraisals center on the concern that feminism has abandoned the goal of unified social structural change in favor of individual choice. CONCLUSION: CRITIQUES AND REMAINING QUESTIONS For many women, it is a welcome change to be living through a period in which girls and young women are not afraid to identify with the term feminist. Indeed, this “more individualized form of feminism . . . can respond to diversity and ambiguity” (Budgeon, 2011, p. 16) in such a way that makes it appealing to many young people who do not want to feel disciplined by a movement’s aesthetics or political expectations. One need only read Roxane Gay’s (2014) collection of essays, Bad Feminist, or watch the BuzzFeed (2015) parody video “Am I a Bad Feminist?”—in which young feminists humorously ask each other if actions such as shaving their legs, enjoying a song by a performer known to have committed domestic violence, and Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power watching porn make them bad feminists—to know that young women seek a flexible feminism that allows for multiple identity positions, few rules, and a malleable definition while still being understood as a movement for equality for all women. Although diverse in its goals, second-wave feminism had two mantras that provided a clear definition of common strategies. The first, “sister- hood is powerful,” represented the belief that a collective politics was vital to making social change. The second, “the personal is political,” captured the notion that personal experience is informed by social inequalities. This allowed women to see the challenges they faced as part of a system of patriarchy that shaped all personal, local, and global institutions. Although women-of-color feminists and lesbian feminists challenged the notion of sisterhood because hierarchies, racism, and hetero- sexism existed within feminist politics, many still believed that—as they had with the Civil Rights Movement— collective politics was the key to social change. Second-wave feminists understood that individual change was not enough to bring forth social justice. They knew that social justice requires social, political, and economic change. For young women coming to feminism today, two new mantras—“my body, my choice” and “girl power” —have emerged to represent a politics born of neoliberalism, postmodernism, and third-wave feminism. Neoliberalism, the prevailing political framework of the 1980s and beyond, has created a focus on individual choice in a presumably free society. Asking one to think of choice rather than rights or justice, neoliberalism has created a feminism that is relativistic and focused on self-empowerment. Postmodernism, an equally powerful governing philosophy, asks young women to question static understandings of truth and power. Scaffolding the intersectional feminist work of the second wave, postmodernism has also challenged the Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power notions of a social movement that could fight with one voice and a political movement flexible and broad enough to include all women under its umbrella. Shaped by the second wave as well as by neo- liberal and postmodern philosophies, the third wave of feminism emerged in the late 1990s with a new focus on individual choice, sexual choice and empowerment, and the living of a feminist life. Third wavers fought for reproductive rights and the end to sexual violence and rape culture. In these fights, and their fight to selfdetermine their identity expressions, third-wave feminists used a language of personal choice. Although a powerful cry for reproductive freedom, “my body, my choice” also captures the generation’s focus on the self and on choice rather than on collective justice. Furthermore, in part because they saw themselves as being born into a world shaped by feminism, third-wave feminists often saw the personal as existing outside of the political. A women’s choice to opt out of the workplace in favor of raising a family, for example, was often discussed as agentic rather than determined within a society that devalues parenting, household labor, and anti-family corporate policies (Vavrus, 2007). Likewise, donning hypersexual garb could be interpreted as the enactment of female choice and does not have to be analyzed for its reproduction of patriarchal objectification of the passive female body. Third-wave feminist rhetoric and symbolism were easy for advertisers, marketers, and other manufacturers of popular culture to adopt. They called this girl power and sold it as a market commodity. Marketing and profit motives make good use of this desire for feminist choice. Girl power completed the fusion of feminism and neoliberalism; inequality no longer needed to be solved through collective social change but through individual personal change. Any failure to be empowered belonged to the individual woman who failed to “lean in” or Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power advocate for her- self. Any woman who made any kind of choice was enacting her right to selfdetermine. This girl power version of feminism not only has been incorporated into popular culture but also is delivered as news by journalists whose reporting on feminist issues has become depoliticized and covers up the movement’s deep-rooted beliefs (Mendes, 2012). Girl power feminism became the appropriation of certain elements of feminist politics melded with an investment in feminine normativity. The girl power feminist celebrates independence, power, and freedom while embracing a femininity shaped by hegemonic male fantasy. Issues of intersectionality, inclusiveness, and social justice are seldom part of a girl power feminist discourse. Feminism seen through the lens of girl power becomes performative rather than political, symbolic rather than activist. “Sisterhood is powerful” is replaced by “my body, my choice” because individual achievement replaces social justice as the movement’s goal, and “the personal is political” becomes a mantra declaring “you do you” because anything can be read as a political statement in an indefinable marketplace of feminist meaning. However, although this girl power feminism is informed by the language of strength, confidence, and ambition, it is individualistic and relative rather than political or activist. This feminism is the performance of female power, not a movement for social change. While so many gender injustices continue, however, women are not ready to perform their power; they still need to fight for it. Still, scholars have explored the possibilities for a feminist politics that is coated in girl power aesthetics but challenges its neoliberal political foundations. They have argued that girls can see the flimsy foundations of girl power feminism and are negotiating their own feminisms outside of popular culture (Keller & Ringrose, 2015). Dobson (2015) and Keller (2015) have Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power argued that the social media landscape produced by girls and young women around body politics, sexuality, rape culture, and other feminist issues has the potential to destabilize the individualized self-disciplined body of neoliberal feminism. Baer (2016) has claimed that digital spaces create the place for collective struggle and that in many of these unabashed feminist spaces the connection between personal experience and structural injustice is brought to the fore. Feminist actions by girls, surrounding the body politics of dress codes, may also serve as practical introductions to feminist body politics and intersectionality (Zaslow, 2016). It remains to be seen, however, whether these protests will be successful at combating patriarchy or if they will, as O’Keefe (2014) has suggested of SlutWalk and the Ukrainian topless protest group FEMEN, “embrace heteronormative, hegemonically masculine ideals of women and sexuality through performance as they attempt to challenge societal norms” (p. 5). Moreover, will these feminist conversations extend beyond issues of choice, which have been so central to neoliberalism, to explore broad issues of economic, political, and social justice? Will young women be able to fight through the neoliberal noise and create collective organizations that recognize the ways in which women’s lives are constrained by social structures and systems? References Allyn, J., & Allyn, D. (1995). Identity politics. In R. Walker (Ed.), To be real: Telling the truth and changing the face of feminism (pp. 143–155). New York, NY: Doubleday. Baer, H. (2016). Redoing feminism: Digital activism, body politics, and neoliberalism. Feminist Media Studies, 16, 17–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14680777.2015.1093070 Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta: Young women, feminism, and the future. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Bellafante, G. (1998, June 29). It’s all about me! Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/ magazine/article/0,9171,139446,00.html Brown, W. (2003). Women’s studies unbound: Revolution, mourning, politics. Parallax, 9(2), 3– 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353464032000064955 Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Budgeon, S. (2011). Third wave feminism and the politics of gender in late modernity. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ 9780230319875 Budgeon, S. (2015). Individualized femininity and feminist politics of choice. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 22, 303–318. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1350506815576602 Butterly, A. (2013, November 12). Miley Cyrus says she’s “one of the biggest feminists.” BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/24911610/ miley-cyrus-says-shes-one-ofthe-biggest-feminists Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power BuzzFeed (Producer). (2015, September 22). Am I a bad feminist? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=OKDtncY0Rwk Chen, E. (2013). Neoliberalism and popular women’s culture: Rethinking choice, freedom, and agency. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16, 440–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367549413484297 Combahee River Collective. (1983). A Black feminist statement: The Combahee River Collective Statement. In C. Moraga & G. Anzaldua (Eds.), This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color (pp. 210–218). New York, NY: Kitchen Table Women of Color Press. (Original work published 1977) Cottom, T. M. (2013, August 27). When your (brown) body is a (white) wonderland. Retrieved from https:// tressiemc.com/uncategorized/when-your-brown- body-is-a-white-wonderland Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. Davis, A. (2000, October 10). The color of violence against women. Colorlines 3.3. Retrieved from http://www. colorlines.com/articles/color-violence-against-women Dines, G., & Jensen, R. (2008). Pornography, feminist debates on. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Retrieved from http://www.communicationencyclopedia.com Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Dobson, A. (2015). Postfeminist digital cultures: Femininity, social media, and selfrepresentation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137404206 Dow, B. J. (1996). Prime-time feminism: Television, media culture, and the women’s movement since 1970. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ensler, E. (1998). The vagina monologues. New York, NY: Villard Books. Evans, S. M. (1979). Personal politics: The roots of women’s liberation in the civil rights movement and the new left. New York, NY: Vintage. Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York, NY: Crown. Findlen, B. (1995). Listen up: Voices from the next feminist generation. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press. Fischer, G. V. (1997). “Pantalets” and “Turkish trowsers”: Designing freedom in the midnineteenth century United States. Feminist Studies, 23, 110–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3178301 Fouad, N. A. (2014, August). Leaning in, but getting pushed back (and out). Paper presented at the 122nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. New York, NY: Vintage. (Original work published 1975) Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Norton. Garcia, L. (2015, October 13). Get it: Second-wave style. Lenny. Retrieved from http://lennyletter.tumblr. com/post/136829469711/get-it-second-wave-style- fashion-inspirationfrom Garcia, L. (2016, January 6). Wild women of 2016: A primer to cultivating new looks in the New Year. Lenny. Retrieved from http://www.lennyletter.com/ style/a216/laia-garcia-wildwomen-of-2016 Garrison, E. K. (2000). U.S. feminism-grrrl style! Youth subcultures and the technologies of the third wave. Feminist Studies, 26, 141–170. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/3178596 Gay, R. (2014). Bad feminist. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, England: Polity. Gill, R. (2003). From sexual objectification to sexual subjectification: The resexualization of women’s bodies in the media. Feminist Media Studies, 1, 100–106. Gill, R. (2007). Critical respect: The difficulties and dilemmas of agency and “choice” for feminism. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14, 69–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350506807072318 Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power “Goldieblox vs. the Big Sister machine.” (2014). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fLO0eQuc-sQ Goldman, R., Heath, D., & Smith, S. L. (1991). Commodity feminism. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 333–351. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/15295039109366801 Gonick, M. (2006). Between “girl power” and “reviving Ophelia”: Constituting the neoliberal girl subject. NWSA Journal, 18(2), 1–23. Groeneveld, E. (2009). “Be a feminist or just dress like one”: BUST, fashion and feminism as lifestyle. Journal of Gender Studies, 18, 179–190. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589230902812471 Grose, J. (2015, October 13). Untitled email to Lenny subscribers. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heinzerling, Z. (Director), Burke, E., Kirsten, B., & Hugo, C. (Producers). (2013). Self titled: Part 4. Liberation [Web series]. Retrieved from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b1loWJfxaA Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Henry, A. (2004). Not my mother’s sister: Generational conflict and third-wave feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Heywood, L., & Drake, J. (2007). It’s all about the Benjamins: Economic determinants of third wave feminism in the United States: A critical exploration. In S. Gillis, G. Howie, & R. Munford (Eds.), Third wave feminism (pp. 114–124). http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1057/9780230593664_9 Hollows, J. (2000). Feminism, femininity, and popular culture. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of white women and women of color. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 833–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 494546 Juzwiak, R. (2013, August 26). In defense of Miley Cyrus. Gawker. Retrieved from http://gawker.com/ in-defense-of-miley-cyrus-1202000866 Keller, J. (2015). Postfeminist digital cultures: Femininity, social media, and self-representation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Keller, J., & Ringrose, J. (2015). “But then feminism goes out the window!”: Exploring teenage girls’ critical response to celebrity feminism. Celebrity Studies, 6, 132–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2015. 1005402 Knowles, B., Fisher, N., Carter, S., Proctor, A. E., Diaz, R., Soko, B., . . . Harmon, J. (2013). Drunk in love [Recorded by Beyoncé]. On Beyoncé [Album]. New York, NY: Columbia Records. Knowles, B., Nash, T., Hollis, C., & Reel, R. (2013). Flawless [Recorded by Beyoncé]. On Beyoncé [Album]. New York, NY: Columbia Records. Knowles, B., Nash, T., Timberlake, J., Mosley, T., Harmon, J., & Weir, D. (2013). Partition [Recorded by Beyoncé]. On Beyoncé [Album]. New York, NY: Columbia Records. Knowles, B., Rooney, C., Olivier, J. C., & Barnes, S. (2000). Independent woman part 1 [Recorded by Destiny’s Child]. On Survivor [Album]. New York, NY: Sony Music Entertainment. Lamb, S., & Brown, L. M. (2006). Packaging girlhood: Rescuing our daughters from marketers’ schemes. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Lawrence, J. (2015, October 13). Why do I make less than my male co-stars? Lenny. Retrieved from http:// www.lennyletter.com/work/a147/jennifer-lawrence- why-do-i-make-less-than-mymale-costars Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mann, S. A. (2013). Third wave feminism’s unhappy marriage of poststructuralism and intersectionality theory. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 4, 54–73. McLaren, M. A. (2002). Feminism, Foucault, and embodied subjectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mendes, K. (2012). “Feminism rules! Now, where’s my swimsuit?” Re-evaluating feminist discourse in print media 1968–2008. Media Culture and Society, 34, 554–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443712442701 Miller-Young, M. (2013). Interventions: The deviant and defiant art of Black women porn directors. In T. Taormino, C. Parrenas Shimizu, C. Penley, & M. Miller-Young (Eds.), The feminist porn book: The politics of producing pleasure (pp. 105–120). New York, NY: Feminist Press. Miriam, K. (2012). Feminism, neoliberalism, and SlutWalk. Feminist Studies, 38, 262–266. Moraga, C., & Anzaldua, G. (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. New York, NY: Kitchen Table Women of Color Press. Morgan, R. (Ed.). (1970). Sisterhood is powerful: An anthology of writings from the women’s liberation movement. New York, NY: Vintage. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Morgan, R. (Ed.). (2007). Sisterhood is forever: The women’s anthology for a new millennium. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Moscatello, C. (2014). So . . . are you a feminist? Seventeen, 73(4), 122–123. Mosthof, M. (2015, April 2). “You do you” isn’t just millennial narcissism—it’s a feminist call to action, so keep saying it. Bustle. Retrieved from https://www. bustle.com/articles/73585-youdo-you-isnt-just- millennial-narcissism-its-a-feminist-call-to-action- so-keep Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ screen/16.3.6 Nash, J. C. (2011). “Home truths” on intersectionality. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 32, 445–470. Nelson, J. (2003). Women of color and the reproductive rights movement. New York: New York University Press. O’Keefe, T. (2014). My body is my manifesto: SlutWalk, FEMEN, and femmenist protest. Feminist Review, 107, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fr.2014.4 Peiss, K. (1998). Hope in a jar: The making of America’s beauty culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York, NY: Ballantine. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2803 (1992). Press, C. (2015, February 15). Miley’s new trick? It’s all about safe sex and lipstick. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/mileys- new-trick-its-allabout-safe-sex-and-lipstick/news- story/2ee067f4c047acf14d5107c4954cf229 Reger, J. (2014). Micro-cohorts, feminist discourse, and the emergence of the Toronto SlutWalk. Feminist Formations, 26, 49–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ ff.2014.0005 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Rosen, J. (2013, August 26). The 2013 VMAs were dominated by Miley’s minstrel show. Vulture. Retrieved from http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/ jody-rosen-miley-cyrus-vmasminstrel.html Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY: Knopf. Scanlon, J. (2009). Sexy from the start: Anticipatory elements of second wave feminism. Women’s Studies, 38, 127–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00497870802634812 Scott, L. M. (2006). Fresh lipstick: Redressing fashion and feminism. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Siegel, D. (2007). Sisterhood, interrupted: From radical women to grrls gone wild. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ 9780230605060 Solinger, R. (2002). Beggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes abortion, adoption, and welfare in the United States. New York, NY: Hill & Wang. Star, D. (Writer), & Seidelman, S. (Director). (1998, June 6). Sex and the city [Television series episode]. In M. P. King (Producer), Sex and the city. New York, NY: HBO. Sternadori, M., & Hagseth, M. (2014). Fashionable feminism or feminist fashion? Media Report to Women, 42(2), 12–21. Vavrus, M. (2007). Opting out moms in the news: Selling new traditionalism in the new millennium. Feminist Media Studies, 7, 47–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14680770601103704 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989). Weedon, C. (1999). Feminism, theory and the politics of difference. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Weidhase, N. (2015). “Beyoncé feminism” and the contestation of the Black feminist body. Celebrity Studies, 6, 128–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19392397.2015.1005389 “What makes you powerful?” (2014). Seventeen, 73(3), 96–97. Willis, E. (1981, June 17). Lust horizons: Is the women’s movement pro-sex. Village Voice, 26, 36–37. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York, NY: Morrow. Wolf, N. (1995). Brideland. In R. Walker (Ed.), To be real: Telling the truth and changing the face of feminism (pp. 35–40). New York, NY: Anchor. Yates, C. (2013, August 26). Miley Cyrus and the issues of slut-shaming and racial condescension. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/ miley-cyrus-and-the-issues-of-slut-shaming-andracial-condescension/2013/08/26/f3aee436-0e68- 11e3-bdf6e4fc677d94a1_story.html?utm_term=. b2ea78a66a50 Zaslow, E. (2009). Feminism, Inc.: Coming of age in girl power media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230101531 Zaslow, E. (2016). #iammorethanadistraction: Connecting local body politics to a digital feminist movement. Manuscript submitted for publication. Emilie Zaslow, Moving from Sisterhood to Girl Power View publication stats