Name-Brand Feminism: Is Feminism Promoting Capitalism?
Kylie Vester
Concordia University Chicago
Sociology of Popular Culture
May 4, 2015
Name-Brand Feminism
1
Name-Brand Feminism: Is Feminism Promoting Capitalism?
On August 24, 2014, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter took the stage at the Video
Music Awards (VMAs) and performed a mashup of the songs within her self-titled
album Beyoncé. From the 16-minute production, she performed a mixture of 15
songs while dancing in front of a full audience, as well as the viewers watching from
home. Once, however, she began to sing part of the song “Flawless,” which contains
quotes by the author Chimamanda Adichie, Adichie’s quote flashed behind Beyoncé
in bright white, as seen in Figure (1). Although this identifier—feminist—was not
shown for a substantial amount of time before the screen changed to another word
representing Beyoncé’s lyrics, the media heralds this moment as powerful.
Figure (1): Beyoncé performing at VMAs
Source: Wyatt 2014
This image that was presented in various media outlets highlights Beyoncé as a
feminist. Seemingly, this specific performance and the meaning attributed to
Beyoncé, as a performer, are mirrored across other women’s experiences within
popular culture. Singer-Songwriter Taylor Swift has very similar experiences. From
Name-Brand Feminism
2
receiving critiques on her social life and the lyrics she writes within her songs, she
openly talks about equality within popular culture and society between females and
males. After a time period where she distanced herself from the feminist label, Swift
currently identifies as a feminist (Hoby 2014). Cate Blanchett, Amy Poehlmer, and
Emma Watson have all come out to the media as self-labeled feminist, embracing
this label and discussing it within the media (Metlzer 2014). An increasing amount
of individuals within popular culture are identifying as feminists and various media
outlets commonly report on this identification. Individuals that do not align with the
feminist label, however, are furthermore critiqued by the media. One individual,
Shailene Woodley, has insisted that she does not identify as a feminist. Woodley has
been criticized for her comments by the media against the feminist label for a length
of time and is under intense media scrutiny, along with other individuals such as
Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, and Kaley Cuoco (Chittal 2015). As the media negatively
evaluates individuals within popular culture that do not align with the feminist
label, the media appraises those popular culture icons for their feminist label.
The individuals that identify as feminists within popular culture portray a
certain image and promote cultural objects to consumers in order to make money.
While endorsing feminism, certain individuals within popular culture take part in
their own sexual objectification, as well as promoting objects that endorse
hegemonic standards of beauty. By doing this, individuals within popular culture are
able to market their own brand in order to make more money. By individuals within
popular culture endorsing feminism, while also promoting products that disconnect
with feminism, the current brand-name feminism that is being produced and
Name-Brand Feminism
3
reinforced is tied to capitalism. This paper will demonstrate that the current namebrand feminism that individuals within popular culture are endorsing promotes
capitalism.
Historical Background
The meaning of feminism has been under contention. Generally, feminism is
the belief that females and males are and should be treated equally (Helgeson
2012:27). Feminism is usually characterized by three stages: first wave, second
wave, third wave, and postfeminist era. The first wave is usually characterized
towards “gaining a legal identity for women that included the right to own property,
to sue, to form contracts, and to vote” (Dicker and Piepmeier 2003:9). While the first
movement of feminism concentrated on gaining legal rights and be recognized by
the government, the second wave was characterized by women “gaining full human
rights” (Dicker and Piepmeier 2003:9), or rather fighting against the objectification
of women (Happel and Esposito 2010:527). The second wave met the concerns of
violence against women, right to express one’s sexuality, and control over women’s
own bodies. Third wave feminism “recognized the body as a site of political
struggle” (Happel and Esposito 2010:527). This wave, in conjunction to the
postfeminism era, suggests that the goals of feminism have already been met and
there is no need for activism concerning gender (Happel and Esposito 2010:527).
These three eras of the feminism within history, although contain specific goals, all
center on the legal recognition of women within institutions and society.
The postfeminist era within society is reinforced through the media. It is the
“institution of popular culture that helps disseminate the proliferation of
Name-Brand Feminism
4
postfeminism’s ideologies” (Happel and Esposito 2010:527). The type of feminism
that popular culture promotes is different than the third wave feminism and is
combined with postfeminist thought. Rebecca Munford and Melanie Waters, authors
of Feminism & Popular Culture: Investigating the Postfeminist Mystique, describes
that popular feminism, for example, can be understood as ‘popular’ in terms of “both
its communality and its cultural location” (Munford and Waters 2014:2). Munford
and Waters (2014) explain that historically, leaders in feminism, such as Ms.
magazine attempted to use the marketplace and capitalism for political means. The
magazine attempted to create an alliance between the commercial marketplace and
feminism. However, these two institutions do not generally work together. While
feminism promotes equality, capitalism and the marketplace’s main goal is to create
profit.
Name-brand feminism is definitive of the type of feminism leaders within
popular culture may promote. While extremely similar to popular feminism that is
embraced by the majority, name-brand feminism differs in that it is embraced due
to its own popularity. Furthermore, the leaders of popular culture may also accept
name-brand feminism due to the positive reaction they receive through the media.
The fear of negative reviews and critiques by popular media is powerful. Positive
reviews lead to increased consumption by individuals within society. Leaders within
popular culture work to reinforce their own brand, and name-brand feminism may
aid in their promotion. This era and movement of feminism, accepted and reinforced
due to its popularity, is name-brand feminism. And as leaders within popular
Name-Brand Feminism
5
culture use their privilege to promote name-brand feminism, it becomes a trend to
identify as a feminist.
The images that leaders in popular culture reinforce within the media create
the expectation that females should resemble that original image of what women
should look like, act like, or how femininity should appear. According to David
Grazian, author of Mix It Up: Popular Culture, Mass Media, and Society (2010), within
the critical theory perspective, popular culture is a form of social control. Not only
do the images that are reproduced in popular culture be taken as reality, but those
unrealistic images are then expected and set forth as a baseline for all other
individuals. Grazian discusses that individuals within society’s “self-worth is
determined by our looks and cultural norms of sexual attractiveness” (2010:62). As
eating disorders and rates of plastic surgery rise (Grazian 2010:63), the expectation
of the norm that the leaders in popular culture set forth increases as well. Leaders in
popular culture, although may believe that they are empowered are actually being
objectified and setting forth the precedent of objectification for other females.
Female Empowerment or Objectification
Name-brand feminism promotes the objectification of females within society
under the guise of female empowerment. Claire Elizabeth Charles, within the article
“New girl heroes: the rise of popular feminist commentators in an era of
sexualisation” (2012), discusses the sexualization of females within popular culture.
Specifically, “‘girls and women are invited to become a particular kinda of self, and
are endowed with agency on condition that it is used to construct oneself as a
subject closely resembling the heterosexual male fantasy found in pornography’”
Name-Brand Feminism
6
(Charles 2012:319). While females are told that within this current postfeminist era,
where equality has been achieved, that they have agency, they are encouraged to
express themselves in a sexual manner according to what the male fantasy is.
Furthermore, the hyper-sexuality that is endorsed within popular media and culture
can be seen as a way to “achieve (and maintain) popularity and success as a young
woman—no matter how accomplished she may be in other pursuits” (Charles 2012:
319). The leaders in popular culture, when they embrace name-brand feminism,
while similarly behaving in a hyper-sexual manner under the male gaze is not
empowered. This false empowerment only promotes the objectification of women
that is reinforced through popular culture.
The objectification of women, according to consumers, is understood as
empowerment. Susuan J. Douglas, within the book The Rise of Enlightened Sexism:
How Pop Culture Took Us from Girl Power to Girls Gone Wild (2010), asserts that due
to the postmodern era, society sees males and females as equal, which has serious
consequences. Specifically, “now that women allegedly have the same sexual
freedom as men, they actually prefer to be sex objects because it’s liberating”
(Douglas 2010:12). Sexual liberation, however, does have consequences. In order to
have sexual liberation and be empowered, females are expected to then dress in a
sexual manner at an earlier age (Douglas 2010:156). The push for sexual
empowerment has been reshaped through the media towards objectification, such
that females, according to Douglas, feel that through their sexual display do they
really have any power to achieve within society (2010:156). Objectification is the
Name-Brand Feminism
7
end result of sexual empowerment due to the inequality between males and females
that the postfeminist era conceals.
Economic Production and Feminism
Economic production determines the social organization of society.
Specifically, economic production is tied to gender oppression and the need for
feminism. Heidi Hartmann, within the article “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism
and Feminism” (2005), describes that capitalism reproduces patriarchy and
represses women. The material base of patriarchy—capitalism—creates social
structures that allow men to be in power over women’s labor (Hartmann 2005:180).
Men then become dependent on one another in order to maintain their dominance
over women. The production system of capitalism exerts gender inequality.
However, there is a connection between economic production and feminism, such
that capitalism is often seen in the appearance of feminist economic power and
agency (Ehrlich 1986:4). Due to the concept that capitalism creates hierarchies
based on gender and race (Hartmann 2005), society cannot create institutions that
are modeled on capitalism. Specifically, “it does little good to build alternative
institutions if their structures mimic the capitalist and hierarchical models with
which we are so familiar” (Ehrlich 1986:8), because these models only promote
inequality in gender.
Capitalism is seen as the social organizer within society. Power and true
agency is translated into buying power. Specifically, the messages within popular
culture, such as “the images we see on television, in the movies, and in advertising
also insist that purchasing power and sexual power are much more gratifying than
Name-Brand Feminism
8
political or economic power. Buying stuff—the right stuff, a lot of stuff—emerged as
the dominant way to empower ourselves” (Douglas 2010:5). The ability to buy what
females want to buy, just as males, is seen as equality between genders. Andi Zeisler,
within the book Feminism and Pop Culture (2008) describes the concept of buying
power as seen as empowerment. When describing the trend in advertisements for
companies to portray confident women buying products for themselves, the
connection between empowerment, feminism, and capitalism solidified. Specifically,
Zeisler describes that if a woman wants a product such jewelry, a beverage, or a
cosmetic surgery, they do not need to wait for a male to buy the product for them—
“Buying these things yourself is a statement of your independence. So even though
the engine behind this products is questionable [. . .] it’s your choice, so it must be
empowering” (2008:105). As females buying power is seen as empowerment
within the system of economic production, in reality, buying power is not real
empowerment within feminism. Buying products, according to Hartmann (2005)
and Ehrlich (1986) reproduces gender inequality.
How to be a Real Feminist
Leaders within popular culture embrace consumers’ buying power through
exerting the appearance of empowerment and their expression of feminism by
asserting the need for individuals to buy cultural objects. Currently, consumers of
popular culture have the ability to promote that they are feminists by buying
products that emphasize the individuals’ affiliation to their ideology. From apparel
to specific cultural objects, consumers have the ability to buy products that
Name-Brand Feminism
9
reinforce their ideological affiliation to others. In order to be ‘real’ feminist within
current culture, individuals must buy products that proudly display ‘Feminist’
across it for easy recognition. A t-shirt that has received a large backing is the ‘This
is what a feminist looks like’ shirt seen in Figure (2). Many celebrities and
politicians were seen supporting feminism by purchasing, wearing, and then posting
about the shirt on social media websites.
Figure (2): Emma Watson wearing ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ shirt
Source: Goldberg 2014
This shirt, however, cost approximately $72 (Goldberg 2014). In order to be a real
feminist, like Emma Watson or other celebrities seen wearing the shirt, individuals
must purchase this item.
The shirt, however, does not actually support feminism, but does support
capitalism. This product was created in sweatshops in Mauritius, where women
work long hours in order to make the shirt and receive little to no pay (Goldberg
2014). The irony involved with buying a shirt that supports feminism while
Name-Brand Feminism
10
simultaneously encouraging consumers to use their buying power for a product
involved in dehumanizing work conditions does not connect. Feminism stands for
equality in all individuals—including individuals from the global south. Grazian
states:
The inequality among local businesses and multinationals plays itself out on
the world’s stage as well, as the international dominance of American
products from fast-food hamburgers to celebrity-endorsed sneakers snuffs
out local traditions in faraway places like China, where the rise of global
capitalism represents its own kind of cultural revolution (2010:56).
The inequality that is expressed, as well as a violation against individuals’ human
rights reflects the fact that consumerism and capitalism promote social inequality.
However, that concept directly contradicts what feminism stands for. Yet, in order
to be considered a ‘real’ feminism that celebrities and leaders in popular culture
portray, consumers must spend the large amount of money for the shirt created by
exploited workers.
Emma Watson spoke at the United Nations on the topic of gender inequality
and feminism. Within her speech, she recommended individuals use the hashtag
#HeForShe to support women and gender equality through social networking
websites. This concept—promoting gender equality and feminism through
technology and social networking websites—is at fault. Not only is there the
assumption that all individuals throughout the global north and global south have
the technology and internet connection to do this, but can furthermore afford these
things. Similarly, the HeForShe website which is through the United Nations also has
Name-Brand Feminism
11
a Shop, allowing potential customers to view HeForShe products such as clothing
and accessories for all ages and genders. In order to support feminism and gender
equality, celebrities that consider themselves to be feminists promote these
products that consumers must buy. Instead of getting involved and being an activist
for these social justice issues, celebrities and leaders within popular culture are
promoting a passive involvement that is based on consumers spending money to
buy physical products and cultural objects.
Popular culture, even concerning brand-name feminism, is centered on
capitalism. Grazian describes that “the primary motivation for designing and
programming media and popular culture is money—not creativity, not free
expression, not pleasure, and certainly not fun, but the unabashed pursuit of profit”
(2010:64). Using feminism as an outlet to pursue profits, is using feminism as a
brand. Due to the fact that “brands connote status” (Grazian 2010:63), having
products that either promote feminism or are endorsed by feminists are ways in
which individuals may gain status. Although female musicians that support
feminism and are activists do influence the female consumers that listen to their
music (Trier-Bieniek 2012:267), the celebrities and leaders within popular culture
that support brand-name feminism influence their listeners and consumers by
recommending that they buy a certain product or endorsing a buyable item instead
of a specific ideology or activism. By doing so, brand-name feminism is associated
with physical products. Now, individuals are not considered ‘real’ or ‘true’ feminists
until they buy the products that leaders in popular culture endorse.
Conclusion
Name-Brand Feminism
12
Current brand-name feminism that celebrities endorse is purely an
endorsement of capitalism. This type of feminism does not herald gender equality.
Instead, this ideology seems to sway consumers to buy products that are endorsed
by celebrities and leaders in popular culture. Specifically “popular culture can exert
tremendous power on creating particular version of the world by privileging certain
ideologies” (Happel and Esposito 2010:526). Currently, popular culture idealizes
brand-name feminism and promotes feminist ideology. However, this current
movement, or current wave of feminism, does not actually promote gender equality.
Instead, celebrities and leaders in popular culture endorse products for their
audience to consume, therefore making profit.
Popular culture, however, is a site for education. Popular culture allows for
people to “gain knowledge about groups to which they do not normally have access”
(Happel and Esposito 2010:526). Studying popular culture teaches individuals
about themselves and others. However there is a need for a critique on this popular
culture. This paper critiques the current wave of brand-name feminism that
celebrities within popular culture promotes. Although more research is needed to
understand the connection between self-identifying as a feminism, promoting the
consumption of products, as well as gaining economic profit from these interaction,
the connection between feminism and capitalism is solid. In order for individuals to
understand that feminism is fallible and leaders within popular culture may have
their own reasons for their ideologies, media literacy is needed in order to uncover
these insidious relationships between ideology and economic production.
Name-Brand Feminism
13
References
Charles, Claire Elizabeth. 2012. “New girl heroes: the rise of popular feminist
commentators in an era of sexualisation.” Gender and Education. 24(2):317323.
Chittal, Nisha. 2015. “Shailene Woodley insists she’s still not a feminist.” MSNBC
News. Retrieved May 2, 2015. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/shailenewoodley-insists-shes-still-not-feminist).
Dicker, Rory and Alison Piepmeier. 2003. “Introduction.” Pp. 3-28. In Catching a
Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st Century, edited by Rory Dicker and
Alison Piepmeier. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
Douglas, Susan J. 2010. The Rise of Enlightened Sexism: How Pop Culture Took Us
from Girl Power to Girls Gone Wild. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Ehrlich, Carol. 1986. Socialism, Anarchism, and Feminism. Boa.
Goldberg, Eleanor. 2014. “‘Feminist’ T-Shirt Backed By Women’s Group Made In
Sweatshop: Report.” Huffington Post. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/feminist-t-shirtsweatshop_n_6094722.html)
Grazian, David 2010. Mix It Up: Popular Culture, Mass Media, and Society. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Happel, Alison and Jennifer Esposito. 2010. “Vampires, Vixens, and Feminists: An
Analysis of Twilight.” Educational Studies. 46:524-531.
Name-Brand Feminism
14
Hartmann, Heidi. 2005. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism.” Pp. 179190 in Inequality: Classic Readings in Race, Class, and Gender, edited by David
D. Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Helgeson, Vicki S. 2012. The Psychology of Gender, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson.
Hoby, Hermione. 2014. “Taylor Swift: ‘Sexy? Not on my radar’.” The Guardian.
Retrieved May 2, 2015.
(http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/23/taylor-swift-shake-itoff).
Meltzer, Marisa. 2014. “Who Is a Feminist Now?” The New York Times. Retrieved
May 2, 2015. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/fashion/who-is-afeminist-now.html?_r=1).
Munford, Rebecca and Melanie Waters. 2014. Feminism & Popular Culture:
Investigating the Postfeminist Mystique. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
“Shop.” 2015. HeForShe. Retrieved May 2, 2015. (http://www.heforshe.org/shop).
Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne M. 2012. “When Women’s Musical Activism is Motivated by
an Activist Musician.” Humanity and Society 36(3):260-269.
Wyatt, Daisy. 2014. “Beyonce MTV VMAs feminist performance: Twitter reacts to
singer’s ‘double standard’.” The Independent. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/beyoncefeminist-performance-at-mtv-vmas-twitter-reacts-to-singers-doublestandard-9689103.html).
Name-Brand Feminism
Zeisler, Andi. 2008. Feminism and Pop Culture. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
15