|
by Phoebe North
We live in the so-called "third wave"
of feminism. There have been innumerable improvements to the quality
of life for women: they are no longer expected to become stay-at-home-mothers
and greater number of job opportunities are available to them than
ever before. Because of the availability of fulfilling career options,
a woman's sense of self should no longer depend on her relationship
to men, her appearance, or her ability to engage in traditional crafts.
However, the glossies of the twenty-first century still rely on these
topics to make up the bulk of subjects for their articles and features.
This obsession with traditional
femininity is understandable in magazines that make no claims of
providing a voice to women with feminist inclinations. Cosmopolitan,
for example, markets itself towards unmarried heterosexual women
and prides itself on its explicit tone; readers would be expecting
too much if they looked to Cosmo to provide political news for
finance-minded lesbians. However, if a glossy purports to speak
for educated and liberated feminists, it should put aside mainstream
consumerist and heterosexist topics. Bust is one of the
only glossies that claims to speak to and for third-wave feminists.
Subtitled "for
women with something to get off their chest," Bust is
filled with images of cool women and products, but also carries
a metamessage
that isn't very far from a very outdated notion of femininity.
Bust's editors
try their hardest to conceal this metamessage, superficially aligning
themselves with feminism. Though they are careful to never mention
the word "feminist" explicitly, their promotional literature
has adopted a feminist self-assuredness. For example, the "about
us" section
of the Bust website promises that "with an attitude
that is fierce, funny, and proud to be female, BUST provides an
uncensored
view
on the female experience" (http://www.bust.com/info/about.html).
The actual text of the magazine is drafted in a similar tone. In
an article in the Summer 2004 issue, Wendy McClure asks, "[.
. .] exactly what are we talking about now when we talk about curves?
Is it fat, hips, big ole butts, or what?" (22). Bust writers'
speak the language spoken in college dorm rooms everywhere. This
casual
tone is underscored by the magazine's focus on sexuality, with
each issue containing several pages of sex-specific articles including
the "One Handed Read," a two-page selection of literary
erotica.
Bust readers (or "Busties," as the magazine
affectionately refers to them) are encouraged to be vocal about
their roles in
heterosexual
pairings.
But Bust is careful
to deny any direct connection to feminism. They fastidiously avoid
calling
themselves "feminists." Most of the celebrities featured seem
similarly eager to deny any connection to the "f-word." For
example, two interviews in the summer 2004 issue (the same edition
that
saw Wendy McClure gushing about "big ol' butts") with actress
Jena Malone and comedienne Aisha Tyler note that these women don't
connect themselves with any wave of feminism. "I don't even
know what that word [feminist] means nowadays," Malone says
(47), while Tyler insists that feminists have "this very
superior attitude that is alienating to young people" (61). The
suggestion of feminism is raised in a reader letter. Although Brandi
Elmore
from Minneapolis
sees Bust as "a shining beacon of hope for this century's
feminism that both [she and her husband] can respect" (7), it is
difficult to see what she is basing this upon beyond basic lip-service
to
sexual openness and a self-righteous attitude.
By denying a connection to
feminism, Bust excuses itself from criticism for reverting
to traditional feminine values. These values can be seen throughout
its pages,
either through an elevation of female handicrafts, an obsession
with beauty products and appearance, or a fixation with males.
A section within the magazine titled "Real Life" is subtitled "crafts,
cooking, home, health." It seems strange that the substance of
a modern female's life should be made up completely of embossing
glassware, using embroidery machines, and formulating recipes for
salad dressings and that feminists would be so preoccupied with
these tasks. Bust promises that by engaging in handicrafts,
women will gain the unequivocal approval of their peers. If you
etch
glassware yourself, Bust says, "they'll spend half
the night telling you how crafty and clever you are" (23).
Bust also features
a fashion section that is almost indistinguishable from those included
in
standard glossies, featuring slender, tan, long-haired ladies.
Issues of Cosmopolitan promise that if women buy items
of clothing they will fit societal standards of beauty, but Bust
goes one step
further by associating these standards of beauty with an individualistic
attitude. This suggests that free spirits also have to participate
in "normal" rituals like tanning, dieting, and hair care in
order to be regarded as attractive.
Bust's other fixation
is heterosexual relationships with "cute" boys. Lesbian and
bisexual relationships aren't mentioned, and their absence is conspicuous
amidst the "Sexfiles" portion of the magazine. Sex toys are
appropriate solely in heterosexual pairings (such as a "make your
own dildo kit" described on page 115) and the questions posed to
sex guru "Aunt" Betty
Dobson all center on solo acts or acts within heterosexual relationships.
For all their encouraged openness, Busties are strangely silent
about the existence of pairings with women.
The women in these traditional
heterosexual relationships are expected to follow conventional
gender roles, cooking and cleaning while their men take the sexual
initiative. In her interview, Jena Malone chimes in with a chirpy
note of domesticity:
"Um, well I'm in love.
His name is Adam and he's a musician, and he's beautiful. We live
together and have been together a year and a half. I'm also building
a lot of things with my hands [. . .] I'm a dork because I'm just
stupendously happy to wake up and make breakfast, and clean dishes"
(47).
Bust promises the
reward of a grateful partner in exchange for partaking in traditional
women's work. In their "One Handed Read," the narrator's
femininity is underscored when she knits a "lover cover" for
her partner who is described as being more appreciative of this
cashmere
codpiece
than he is of her. Comically, he fondles her handiwork post-coitus
rather than fondling its creator.
Meanwhile, "beautiful" men
like Adam are encouraged to take on a masculine persona. An article
entitled "What up, Wimpster?" derides feminine males because
they don't fulfill the traditional male gender stereotype, letting
their female partners make the first move or stand up for themselves.
Author Rachel Elder writes, "a girl he feels something for is being
cornered in a bar [. . .] in place of kicking the guy's ass [.
. .], your defense will consist of loud sighing and a glare or
two" (50).
This failure to act (which may be simply the result
of a belief that a woman doesn't need protecting) is equivalent
to a failure to be a man; these "wimps" don't have "the
balls to back it up" (50).
Bust's constant
infantalization of women is telling of their lack of commitment
to feminism. An article entitled "Welcome to the Dollhouse" examines
adult women who play with dolls. While some use the dolls in artwork,
creating installations or photographic scenes centered on them,
many engage in doll-play to simply fill the voids in their lives.
"It gives you something to do every day, something to look forward
to," one doll aficionado raves, "[. . .] the whole world can
blow up and I can be safe in my little basement with my dolls"
(66). Bust tries to reduce other interests to child's
play as well. Both a troupe of Drag Kings and a costumed interpreter
in a historical
community are described as "playing dress-up" ("what
started two years ago as a few girls playing dress-up [. . .]"
on 14 and "I
get to dress up and play with little lambs all day!" on page 26).
Bust encourages a child-like frivolity, even if more serious
motives are present or more satisfying options are possible.
Is there any harm in such
messages that stress on boys, dress, and play? After all, Bust is
often a humorous, light-hearted read. Pleasure has often been a
defense of more traditional women's magazines; they're trivial
and slightly demeaning, but they're fun. Dawn Currie illustrated
the weakness of this argument in her essay "Decoding Femininity:
Advertisements and their Teenage Readers": "While sociological
structuralism patronized women as unthinking consumers of capitalist
culture, the notion that media cannot be criticized if audiences
enjoy them simply replaces elitism with populism" (460). The popular
voice rejoiced in the entertainment value in the magazines of the
1950s, but their entertainment existed in conjunction with a feminine
image that most women found stifling.
Before the second-wave feminist
movement, fulfillment was only achievable through the attainment
of male appreciation; women were told to be beautiful, domestic
and sexual. They were urged to choose these values over educations
and careers, but really this choice was illusory: to ignore the
more traditional lifestyle was to be seen as deficient in the role
of a female. This emphasis on domesticity benefited advertisers
as women increased spending on beauty products and vacuum cleaners
which promised to ease the burden of their lives. Cooking and preening
were elevated by magazines to noble, almost sacred practices, as
Friedan writes:
"[Traditional femininity]
simply makes certain concrete, finite, domestic aspects of feminine
existence‚as it was lived by women whose lives were confined, by
necessity, to cooking, cleaning, washing, bearing children‚ into
a pattern by which all women must now live or deny their femininity"
(43).
These obsessions proved detrimental
to women who weren't forced into these maternal roles by necessity.
Women were increasingly unsatisfied with what they had been told
was their fated lot in life. As they tried to fill their days with
cooking, cleaning and beautification, they grew resentful of their
husbands who had the option of making an impact on the external
world and demanded to be afforded that same right. Advertisers
attempted to ensure that they would keep their hold upon this group
by adapting to their changing tastes. In the nineteen eighties,
Good Housekeeping aimed a series of advertisements to
a group they dubbed "the New Traditionalists." The women depicted
in these advertisements were described as strong family women whose
values were more in line with the world preceding feminism. "The
New Traditionalist," Marcy Darnovsky recounts, "[was] firmly
rejecting the feminists and cultural radicals who questioned the
nuclear
family: she lives in a world in which people do make commitments"
(79). Advertisements like these allowed big business to lure in
customers
who found the strength of feminism appealing but the potential
solitude of the rejection of the heterosexist norm alienating.
Bust similarly
addresses the fears and apprehensions of third-wave feminists,
and exploits
these fears in the hope of making a profit. Although the magazine
would like readers to believe that there isn't "any conflict between
being a sexual person, wearing makeup, dating guys, and being a
feminist" (61), it offers no alternatives for young women if they
wish to be feminists. Bust seeks to mold their audience
into suave consumers, although they are consumers of overpriced
t-shirts and
dolls shaped like tampons in addition to being consumers of cookware
and beauty products. The ultimate irony of the Bustie is her lack
of real strength, as she is just as trapped in the kitchen and
the bedroom as were her ancestors. Unfortunately, readers like
Brandi Elmore don't seem to realize that the strength of women
isn't forged through knitting cashmere
condoms or etching "hooch" onto shot glasses or even
through shopping at overpriced boutiques in Manhattan but
instead
through fostering independence, through supporting education
in a variety of fields (not just the domestic), and through
becoming both politically aware and active. Though Bust wouldn't
like you to believe it, "women with something to
get off their chests" are those women who question the status
quo instead of simply buying into it.
Works Cited
Bust. 28 (2004).
Currie, Dawn H. "Decoding
Femininity: Advertisements and Their Teenage Readers." Gender
and Society. 11.4 (1997): 453-477.
Darnovsky, Marcy. "The New
Traditionalism: Repackaging Ms. Consumer." Social Text. 29 (1991):
72-91.
Friedan, Betty. The
Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, 1983.
|
