The need to place feminism in different contexts in order to gain a more wholesome understanding of the concept is vital. Feminism obviously has many pretexts that almost anyone can give the stereotype to - the image of the overly assertive, free spirit, outspoken lesbian. However, especially today, this could not be farther from the truth. Women have made considerable progress in furthering their rights, finding ourselves in the 'Third Wave' of the Feminist movement today. But in a way, we could not be more polar on the issues among women everywhere. The question of race is something that rests central in the debate of what feminist values truly are. I think it is safe to say that each and every woman has her own personal definition of what feminism is. What is considered offensive to one woman, another may consider 'sexy.' These are only the smaller issues that rest within the movement.
Audre Lorde points out the stark differences between American women - race, sexuality, class, and age. All of these things that are supposed to make our country unique and define are values, are exactly what is tearing women apart. Like Tiya Miles' experience with her school newspaper, movements of unity and progress are often plagued with issues of power relations and disagreement. Lorde eloquently states: "Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic." Women need to embrace their differences, taking into account the different sentiments of all women, and sending a unified message, rather than one of disbandment. Women must use this as a "force of change." Unfortunately, I think Lorde is completely validated in her sentiments of poor women and women of color feeling differently about the feminist movement than a woman who is 'privileged.' The key to understanding is dialogue and education.
Going along with the theme of dialogue and education, Miles points out that the women 'On the Rag' were at a severe disadvantage in not being well versed and educated on the history of the women's movement. In order to make progress, it is so important to contextualize a situation. Enter Peggy McIntosh. She has done something so remarkable in pointing out the small things that a white, privileged woman enjoys without ever having to acknowledge or recognize this. The history of our country has always stressed white supremacy. Granted, many civil liberties have been granted to those no matter race, gender, or socioeconomic status, but one cannot deny that things like racism still vehemently exist in the United States today. Many females that are in the 'majority' oppress unconsciously, as McIntosh points out. This is not particularly their own fault - but rather what Johnson and Frye discuss as working within the system that has been predetermined in society. Many historical factors play a role in these 'daily effects of white privilege.' Just like the word 'oppression' has become out of context in some situations, the meaning of the word 'privilege' has evolved to "dominance because of one's race or sex." Instead of a "favored state," it has negative connotations.
I think that dialogue is most important in establishing the conversation about race. Miles and the group of women, essentially in two years, mirrored the walls that the women's movement has run into since it began. Constructive dialogue turns into discord and unfavorable feelings towards other women. In order for this movement to be strong, women, no matter race, must understand the other. Education and dialogue are key. In order to make waves and establish major change, women must be a unified front. This may be an idealized vision of what this movement 'should' be, but I think that pointing out these stark differences between different groups of women is a huge step in educating women everywhere about their own differences. By beginning to understand these differences, women will find themselves subconsciously viewing themselves and others in a different light.
The general consensus after reading the articles by Frye and Johnson rest upon the fact that male privilege ultimately leads to female oppression. I found many parallels between the argument Johnson proposes regarding working within the greater system, changing actions as individuals, that will ultimately lead to a change in the system, and Betty Friedan, who worked to draft changes in legislation in order to make strides in the Second Wave of the Feminist Movement. However, Johnson also has many parallels with Brownmiller, looking to go outside of the box, acting outside of the norm, in order to bring about a change that will impact the lives of both men and women. Both Johnson and Frye claim that the 'oppressors', namely the males in a patriarchal society, as well as the 'oppressed', the women, suffer from some form of oppression in their lives while working within the system that society has created. The system is involuntary. Frye is a bit radical in her claims that oppression "restricts or prevents the thing's motion or mobility." Granted, Frye's article was written in 1983, and as Johnson rightly suggests, we must take this claim in the context of the times. Since the early 1980s, women have made great strides in combatting this claim, raising to unprecedented levels of society. As Ariel Levy discusses in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, the Third Wave of Feminism, emerging in the 1990s and to present day brings a generation of women to the table who have bought into a mass media culture and have been accepted into the cultural norms of society as they have never been before. Women are most certainly not confined by any means, that is not to say they are still not discriminated against because of their sex to present day, but there are an increasing number of avenues to embark on to overcome these challenges.
Oppression is all a part of the system. Everything within is 'systematically related.' I admired Johnson's points about the system of patriarchy, and pointing out that all men, whether oppressive or not, are unfortunately a part of this system. As Dave points out above, radical change rarely brings about a solution. I agree with both Johnson and Dave in that small, meaningful strides must be taken within the system first in order to achieve any sort of progress to leveling the playing field of femininity and patriarchy. The underlying fact here is in power relations. How men and women relate to each other within the system specifically shapes how patriarchy functions as an inescapable element of society. A specific point that struck me in Johnson's piece was about how patriarchy is about doing 'what's expected' for a real man. We have dug a hole so deep in society today concerning the male image that must be turned around. Johnson uses the example of giving a speech. When he gives a speech, he not only feels good about it, but because he benefits from male privilege, the audience most likely took something from the speech also. However, if a women gave the speech, it would not be as credible. Johnson points out that he is a strong advocate for women's rights, to the point where he has gone to a state and pinpointed a problem, while proposing some type of legislation. However, he is also a privileged male. This is seemingly involuntary, but nonetheless, he is still placed in this group within the system.
I think when looking at women's rights and feminist issues, it is always important to place issues in the context in which they are presented. Personally, I agree with Dave in that Frye is a bit radical in her assessment of oppression. However, these opinions are something to take into account. Johnson has a more pragmatic approach to the situation, placing many of the patriarchical stereotypes within a context. A man's worth is determined by many specific factors that we have a society have shaped, as well as the stereotypical roles of the female. I think both Frye and Johnson bring up good points, looking to show power relations between men and women, as well as placing the issue of patriarchy and feminism within a context that a solution can start to be drafted within.
I think both Johnson and Frye bring up interesting points regarding the patriarchal system and the role of both men and women within this system. There are bold claims made in both of these texts; some I agree with but others I am unable to consider quality arguments. One specific point made by Frye that I am unable to agree with is that due to the system of oppression in society all women enjoy the act of rape. Frye even goes as far to say that by an extension of the idea of women enjoying rape there is actually no rape at all. I fundamentally disagree with Frye's assessment on the grounds that I believe rape is not necessarily a creation of the system as well as the fact that rape is clearly is real issue that no women is going to willingly
allow to occur. To clarifiy my disagreeing stance towards Frye's concept of rape, I think the 'system' cannot be blamed for rape. Simply chalking up a rape as a contingent quality of a system where brutality and violence against women is accepted is a cheap assessment of much heavier and complex issues surrounding this violent act. I also want to clarify that I do not necessarily know the true depth of this issue and thus cannot formulate the be all and end all of opinions regarding why rape happens. That being said, I completely disagree with Frye's assessments regarding the female role and analysis of rape. In regards to Johnson's piece, I appreciate his assessment of the idea of only seeking solutions that work within the system. My particular opinions on the extent to which the system actually bolsters or inhibits an individuals potential do not necessarily align with Johnson's but I agree that often times radical solutions are shyed away from. Johnson's quote on monopoly, "If you're about to drive someone into bankruptcy, you can excuse yourself by saying, 'I've got to take your money, those are the rules,' but only if you ignore the fact that you could choose not to play or could suggest a change in the rules," highlight this specific issue. Johnson makes a convincing argument that radical changes are needed but it is simple truth in the society we live in today that people and the services they provide are expendable and easily replaced. I think both articles do well in characterizing the patriarchal system and aspects of oppression that are closely linked to this system. While not all points in the respective texts are agreeable, the insight they provide on this issue is interesting and starts the conversation necessary to evoke the radical change that the authors hope for.
Since the second wave of the feminist movement, women have found themselves amidst a large-scale campaign to promote women’s rights from a number of different angles. As a collective initiative, the feminist movement has attacked a wide variety of issues ranging from voting rights to equal treatment in the workplace. While the 1960s marked a period of reinvigorated interest in advancing feminist efforts, a historical analysis of the decade reveals the beginning of a divide between those participating. Collaboration and integration of the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution helped shape the way in which society views women today and facilitated the emergence of “raunch culture” so prevalent in the modern world.
Within today’s society, this raunch culture has come to be generally accepted as inevitable. Many times we fail to even recognize the sexual innuendos or demeaning messages that infiltrate our popular culture so frequently. Raunch culture may be presented in a variety of forms, including commercials, magazine advertisements, popular fashions, and so forth. While our population as a whole is constantly bombarded with such propaganda, over time we have continued to become numbed to such phenomena. Although it may occur subconsciously or without realizing, women are portrayed as subordinate to men in these situations and fall victim to the perpetuation of inequality through raunch culture.
While I often observe instances of raunch culture in day to day life, one advertisement particularly caught my attention over the summer. The ad was for a Burger King Seven Inch Sub and displays the side profile of a blonde woman with her mouth open about to eat the large sandwich. The words “It’ll Blow Your Mind Away” cover the lower half of the ad, as if the sexual imagery was not enough to convey the reference to oral sex being made. Online, one blogger commented that “apparently subtlety is dead,” yet the overbearing nature of the commercial ad did not stop the company from running the advertisement in Singapore earlier last year. While the ad was never printed in America, it did circulate across the internet and reached a wide number of viewers. Although such media offerings may be regarded as harmless or even entertaining, a deeper look exposes the way in which sexuality has become a business tool and the damaging cultural implications that are carried with it.
Advertisements, such as the one from Burger King, that play into raunch culture are not necessarily a reflection of what the public wants to see, but more of an indication as to what produces the greatest results. Although this ad may be more overt than ones commonly found in magazines or newspapers, the media has programmed us to consider scantily clad women selling jewelry or even blatant references to oral sex as socially acceptable. When the Vice President of Girls Gone Wild was asked about his company’s strategy, he responded “it’s a business; in a perfect world maybe we’d stop and change things. But we know the formula. We know how it works” (Levy, 8). While this statement was made in reference to Girls Gone Wild, it may be applied to many aspects within our culture. Obvious sexual innuendos, such as the Burger King Sandwich ad, may not be witty or subtle, however still produces results.
While the so called “formula” to selling sex for business may generate the highest revenue, it leaves a trail of damaging social implications in its wake. Levy identifies a lack of uniqueness within her book Female Chauvinist Pigs, stating because “it is not part of the formula, individuality is erased.” The Burger King advertisement is no exception to this statement. While the ad intends to sell a sandwich, a woman’s face is the main focal point of the image. Rather than a face shot, however, capturing the photo from a side profile allows the woman to widely open her mouth in a suggestive manner. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing unique about the model used. The woman chosen for the advertisement has no defining or unusual characteristics; She is blonde, red-lipped and heavily made up. The selected hair and makeup styling implies that there is nothing substantial about this woman. The image evokes a sexual connotation while doing nothing to promote or appreciate women in general. Exploring the deeper implications of such a raunchy ad helps one understand how such a male-dominated culture was able to emerge within this progressive time.
Criticizing one Burger King ad is not to be confused with condemning sexuality. In fact, there is no problem with expressing sexuality, however once this sexuality is exploited a line is crossed. In this specific advertisement, sexual appeal is aimed exclusively towards men. This becomes an issue because felatio situations “revolve around girls giving erotic performances and boys literally lying back and enjoying the benefits” (Levy, 144). The Super Seven Inch sandwich is an item that will generally be ordered by men because of its size. As a result, men become the target audience and advertisements aim to spark their interest. Sexual references are not always so blatant. They frequently underlie many of the messages we see from the media. In order to end this cycle of inequality being perpetuated it is imperative to recognize the subtle (or not-so-subtle) innuendos or messages that are constantly sent by the media.
Warning! The video clips below and content of the blog post may contain images and descriptions of encounters that may be offensive to some people. Please do not view these videos in a public place or if you will be offended by lewd conduct, sexual poses, nudity, or detailed descriptions of sexual encounters.
The representation of women in the media has drastically changed over the years. In all outlets of the media women have shed more clothing and accentuated their physical attributes. This is particularly true in the music industry where women are judged harshly by their appearance and forced to use their bodies as sex symbols to boost intrigue and more importantly, record sales. In my examination I chose not to focus on female performers and artists but rather the females included in the music videos of male rap artists. In particular I chose to analyze the rapper 50 Cent’s music video for the song “Disco Inferno.” I selected this video for the fact that it is one of the most over-the-top examples of the role that these women play in popularizing an artist, his music, and his music videos. These women that accentuate rap videos, commonly referred to as video girls or video vixen, are the purest representation of female objectification and I intend to prove how their actions, that some argue are liberating, are actually used to achieve popularity and monetary gain by the male artists and the record labels. I feel it is important to quickly point out the popularity of the song Disco Inferno. This song was included on 50 Cent’s 2005 album “The Massacre” and witnessed great success and popularity. The song was a Top 10 rank on 8 different U.S. Billboard Top lists including a number three ranking on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 list and a number one ranking on the U.S. Billboard Rhythmic Top 40 list.[1] The song includes many controversial lyrics, none as provocative, or as forward, as the chorus which goes as follows. Lil’ mama show me how you move it, Go ahead put ya back into it, Do ya thang like there aint nothin to it, Shake… shake… shake that ass girl[2] The treatment of women in the lyrics is truly tame compared to the music video, in which a majority of the females are seen bent over from behind shaking for the camera. The video eventually progresses from shots of the video girls bouncing their butts or 50 Cent pouring champagne and liquor on a video girl’s butt, to a soft core pornography where the girls shed their tops and begin to pair off with other girls for make out sessions. From beginning to end this video is full of numerous video girls exposing themselves and accentuating their butts and breasts in a most open manner. I did not take a tally, but I think it is safe to say there are more shots of women that exclude their faces, in exchange for zoomed in shots of their butts or breasts, than clips of the women’s faces. One particular quote from Ariel Levy’s book that I found to question the role of the video girl very well was a comment from Erica Jong, a sex-positive feminist, who states, “let’s not get so into the tits and ass that we don’t notice how far we haven’t come.” (Levy 76) This idea of sexual expression as a liberating force has been hotly debated and there are definitely people out there who argue for a video girl’s right to be sexy and flaunt her body. However the sexual expression is so blatantly objectification in some videos, especially Disco Inferno, that one could argue the role of the video girl is worse than that of the female porn star. One specific reason for this is that the video girl is represented as an object, a specific body part, or a form of entertainment for the rappers in these videos while a porn star at least at times attains satisfaction, whether real or feigned, for herself. Levy would assert that the video girl is doing nothing positive for the feminist movement, including the sex-positive faction, as they are basing their sexual expression and freedom to do so on the misconception that this is liberating for women. Another interesting aspect of the profession of video girl, that I personally feel is important to take into account, is that it is extremely lucrative. Levy explores the idea of women using their bodies to make money in the chapter Female Chauvinist Pigs. The two people that Levy interviews in this chapter that would support this stance the most are Sheila Nevins the HBO executive and the woman Sherry. Nevins is a clear proponent of the ‘if you’ve got it flaunt’ state of mind, who thinks the issue is not women flaunting their bodies but the behind the scenes and neglected injustices in the office. Nevins’ opinion on women using their bodies as tools for profit is summed up in her remark, “As if women taking off their clothes is disgusting and degrading. Not being able to feed your kids, that’s disgusting and degrading.” (Levy 91) Sherry shares a similar opinion to Nevins as she is indifferent on how women succeed, “whether they’re using their minds to do it or using their tits.” (Levy 98) I was able to find a unique expression of a video girl’s motivation for doing what she does in a review of the book, Confessions of a Video Vixen, by Karrine Steffans. Steffans is a former video girl and is considered top of the line when it comes to being able to sexually represent herself in order to promote an artist and his song or video. Steffans was motivated in this profession simply because she could receive thousands of dollars for a day’s worth of shooting. Steffans also comments on the aspect of this profession where the women are not only expected to perform and sexually represent themselves in the video, but also, after the shooting, to provide sexual favors for the artists. During her time as a video girl Steffans was known as “Superhead, the insatiable lover of many Hollywood stars, sports figures, and some of music’s most influential performers.”[3] The name Superhead leaves little to guessing what she was known for beyond the video shoots and acknowledges the role of sex as a tool for advancement in the video girl profession. While I believe that Nevins and Sherry might be comfortable with video girls getting paid well for their performance in the videos, I feel it is safe to say they would oppose the aspect of this profession where frequent sexual favors are not only expected but are also necessary for the advancement up the ranks and in turn greater pay. One short paragraph from the book review is worth sharing as it highlights the degree to which these video girls are expected to perform sexually both for the camera and then literally for the artists after the video shoots. The excerpted paragraph is transcribed below. Here’s how she recalls first meeting Jay-Z, who took her for a ride in his Mercedes during a break from making a music video. “After a few moments of silence, Jay pulled out his penis, covered it with a condom, and placed his hand on the back of my head. We carried on in the car for a while and headed back to the set as if nothing had happened.” What a charmer.[4] The way in which Steffans unemotionally performs sexual favors makes her appear as almost less than human. Steffans acknowledges that she was naïve and asserts in retrospect that “no one who values, loves, or knows herself would allow herself to be placed in such a degrading position.”[5] I believe Levy and Steffans would see eye to eye on this evaluation made in hindsight that Steffans was wrong in “using the oldest trick in the book” to sleep her way to the top.[6] The profession of video girls is a truly unique. I chose 50 Cent’s Disco Inferno music video because it is one of the more outrageous, but this does not go to say it is the only one of its kind, because similar representations of women are a dime a dozen. Disco Inferno clearly illustrates how women in the media are objectified for the sole basis of gaining attention and in the pursuit of profit. Both the men and women that capitalize and participate in these activities are to blame. One would be hard pressed to find a clear point when the media shifted to the uber sexed up realm that is today, however with the continued pushing of the envelope with video girls these blatant representations of ‘sex selling’ in the media today will only continue.
[1] Disco Inferno (50 Cent Song), January 15, 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Inferno_(50_Cent_song) [2] ELyrics.net, “Disco Inferno Lyrics,” http://www.elyrics.net/read/0-9/50-cent-lyrics/disco-inferno-lyrics.html [3] Kam Williams, review of Confessions of a Video Vixen, by Karinne Steffans, AALBC.com Book Reviews. http://aalbc.com/reviews/confessions_of_a_video_vixen.htm [4] Kam Williams, review of Confessions of a Video Vixen, by Karinne Steffans, AALBC.com Book Reviews. http://aalbc.com/reviews/confessions_of_a_video_vixen.htm [5] Kam Williams, review of Confessions of a Video Vixen, by Karinne Steffans, AALBC.com Book Reviews. http://aalbc.com/reviews/confessions_of_a_video_vixen.htm [6] Kam Williams, review of Confessions of a Video Vixen, by Karinne Steffans, AALBC.com Book Reviews. http://aalbc.com/reviews/confessions_of_a_video_vixen.htm
The new culture that women are buying into today is certainly different from the likes of twenty years ago. With the spread of mass media and popular culture’s new obsession with fame and looks, it is hard to escape the moneymaking trap. Advertisements are literally flooding our senses with subliminal message to try and lure consumers to buy their products. Children are exposed to “Raunch Culture,” as Ariel Levy discusses in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, at an earlier age than ever. Levy depicts the Female Chauvinist Pig like so: “She is post-feminist. She is funny. She gets it. She doesn’t mind cartoonish stereotypes of female sexuality, and she doesn’t mind a cartoonishly macho response to them” (Levy 93). Females today are to be more “comfortable” with themselves and their sexuality in order to embody all of the qualities that make them a woman, as it has been defined in this day and age.
I chose a Jim Beam whiskey commercial, entitled “The Girlfriend.” I think this video sums up every macho-stereotype that exists within popular culture. The advertising department at Jim Beam put out an ad, directed at young-single men who are looking for the hot commodity female who will do everything in her power to please him and look good on his arm while doing it. This woman is scantily clad; the commercial is screaming with sexual undertones and subliminal messages. The thing that was most shocking to me is that Jim Beam whiskey was not mentioned once until the very end of the forty-five second long ad. Until then, viewers only see this exotic looking female in lingerie, reciting the desires of every young man across America. This ad airs during sporting events, on channels such as ESPN – the targeted audience. Through the objectification of females, Jim Beam finds a powerful marketing tactic that will sell their whiskey.
Levy points out: “Nobody wants to be the frump at the back of the room anymore, the ghost of women past” (92). The woman in this commercial is in the spotlight, the sexy and empowered female woman that the media pushes into the faces of consumers and eager adolescent boys, the woman who throws her inhibitions out the window. Levy also makes another valid point that truly embodies what this woman is doing: “Hotness doesn’t just yield approval. Proof that a woman actively seeks approval is a crucial criterion for hotness in the first place” (33). This woman clearly exerts no moral self-confidence, or any value in the relationship between a man and a woman besides sex. The dichotomy unfolds here; the woman of the Second Wave feminist movement, in a way, were trying to get rid of the gender roles that had previously been bestowed upon them, leaving them lonely housewives with nothing to call their own. The “knight in shining armor” husband was no longer valued in the way it once was, rather female independence and liberation from the societal norms that had been created – oppressing women. Unfortunately, society has taken this to a new extreme. The respect that a man and a woman have for each other is nonexistent according to this advertisement, and the slew of others that are out there on the market today.
Aside from choosing a scantily clad woman as the focus of this ad, the fact that it is an ad for an alcoholic beverage cannot be overlooked. As Levy discusses with the founders of the CAKE organization, a trendy feminist group of today, the use of alcohol and strippers, appealing to a mainly male audience, is what makes things sell. There is no proper justification for this. The founders of CAKE could not put their finger on what makes this the new feminist movement, or the new definition of a female in today’s society. I think this is the dilemma that the teenage and young-twenty-somethings face today. There is a constant tug of war; do we follow in the footsteps of this sexy woman that “likes guys who watch a lot of football, and go out with the boys,” thinking that this is such a great thing for her? Or do we rebel? Is this something that has completely spiraled out of control that we are at risk of becoming as a whole if something is not done now, with this generation? Should she be or idol? Or a nemesis? All of these questions must subconsciously haunt the minds of young females today. What is socially accepted is something that is rather new and edgy.
Women have come a long day from the post-WWII days in this country. We have finally had our voices heard, in some shape or form. Even if we have not seen the amounts of change that were once hoped for, part of the success of a movement is making the general population aware of what is going on in society. Today, more than ever, woman are educated and in the workforce in hopes of climbing to the top. We have seen it done – big execs at large corporations, like Sony and HBO, are women. Even at Jim Beam, a woman executive comments on this ad in a news article: “It's tongue-in-cheek, and we wanted to tap into that humor," says Kelly Doss, senior director of Bourbons and Whiskeys for Beam Global. To that end, "The Girlfriend" has been airing since Jan. 19 on ESPN and TNT. "We did a very focused TV buy with this," she tells Marketing Daily," because we know [our targets] are sports fanatics, focused on the NBA--they're online, creative and they have passion.”[1] These execs are focused on the moneymaking aspect of this business, overlooking any misogynistic approaches towards women! It is mind boggling, but unfortunately the reality of our times. Christie Hefner, a woman who Levy highlights in Female Chauvinist Pigs, shows that she is engaged in feminist causes and works for the betterment of women and young girls on a daily basis. However, she also runs one of the biggest empires that denotes the power of the WOMAN. Levy finds from this interview: “many more women appear in Playboy for the simple reason that they are paid to” (43). Society has come to a tipping point.
The woman in this commercial says about ‘her Jim Beam drinking man:’ “I know they sometimes go to the striptease, but it’s okay, I’m not jealous – he can do whatever he wants.” She has turned herself into something that looks like she is about to perform a striptease. She is trying to “fit in with the boys,” just as Levy has pointed out this problem in our culture today. I do not think it is wrong for a girl to try and “hang with the guys” on occasion. However, putting down her own identity as a female is something that has little impact upon the reciting of the words, but a larger implication. I think all females need to take a look at this advertisement, and ask themselves, what is the real message here? We are at a point where we need to redefine respect, but that does not necessarily mean abandoning the fun and youthful aspect of today’s popular culture.
“My idea of feminism is self-determination, and it's very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do.” Ani Difranco
"It's important to remember that feminism is no longer a group of organizations or leaders. It's the expectations that parents have for their daughters, and their sons, too. It's the way we talk about and treat one another. It's who makes the money and who makes the compromises and who makes the dinner. It's a state of mind. It's the way we live now." Anna Quindlen
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." Rebecca West
"People have accepted the media's idea of what feminism is, but that doesn't mean that it's right or true or real. Feminism is not monolithic. Within feminism, there is an array of opinions." Judy Chicago
The need to place feminism in different contexts in order to gain a more wholesome understanding of the concept is vital. Feminism obviously has many pretexts that almost anyone can give the stereotype to - the image of the overly assertive, free spirit, outspoken lesbian. However, especially today, this could not be farther from the truth. Women have made considerable progress in furthering their rights, finding ourselves in the 'Third Wave' of the Feminist movement today. But in a way, we could not be more polar on the issues among women everywhere. The question of race is something that rests central in the debate of what feminist values truly are. I think it is safe to say that each and every woman has her own personal definition of what feminism is. What is considered offensive to one woman, another may consider 'sexy.' These are only the smaller issues that rest within the movement. 
