#commidification

[klassicknight]

[klassicknight]

[klassicknight]

[theroguerunway-blog]

The third wave of feminism, ushered in during the 90s by activists like Rebecca Walker, existed alongside the explosion of the internet, the creation of blogs, and the invention of digital social media.

The digitization of information largely means the democratization of info in Western countries, where citizens have access to the internet via public and private institutions, but it also means corporations and institutions can exploit these ideas for money, seeing as these ideas (due to social media and the internet) now have larger followings. Lots of ideologies have been watered down and exploited for profit in the last decade.

Feminism’s been exploited by capitalist industries, no doubt.

Young teens, third (some argue fourth, who knows anymore? boundaries between the two and between generation z and millennials are murky and constantly fought over) wave feminists, can now explore sexism and misogyny via their Twitter timeline or a graphic posted to Tumblr. 

Corporations know this, and are desperate to lure in young audiences (in their minds, potential buyers and lifetime customers).

So how do they get us?

Feminist merch. Straight up, feminist merch. Shirts with pictures of Frida Kahlo. Jelly bracelets with the term “feminist” strung around it on heart-shaped beads. Cheaply made baseball-tees with the term “feminist” and a dictionary definition of the term beneath it in bold typeface.

Are these things cute? Sure, no lie.

Should we buy these? No, because feminism has been commodified. It’s no longer a politicized term, but a buzz word that translates directly into dollar signs.

The retailers and brands selling you feminist merch pay their factory workers terribly. They don’t provide maternal or paternal leave. The proceeds they make off feminism, off of the struggle of women, don’t go to non-profits or to breast cancer survivors or low-income families; it goes to the pockets of large corporations

Frida Kahlo would HATE that. Actually, I know she’d hate it. 

The corporations selling you feminist merch don’t care about feminism. They don’t believe in it. They’re using the word to make money. They’re appropriating a cause, one they have no intention of supporting.

True feminist merch is handcrafted by you, the consumer. It’s the bracelets you make with friends and the shirts you make with thrifted shirts and iron-on decals. True feminist merch is made by feminists. There’s often no profit involved, and if there is one, it’s donated or given meaning. 

True feminist merch is political. It reiterates feminism’s beliefs and values and disrupts capitalism, misogyny, ableism, clasissm and etc. 

Stop buying feminism and benefiting the same people who don’t care about you

.Make feminism. Spread feminism. 

Reclaim the term “feminism” one home-made tee at a time.

[jvsp3r]

The Problem with "Shake It Off"

America’s sweetheart as gone “urban”. I’m not sure if she’s hopping on the pop bandwagon or if girls just wanna have fun, but Taylor Swift’s latest video “Shake It Off” has her pulling a Miley. Now she hasn’t gone totally rogue (no tongue or giant foam fingers here) but her video is just one of the latest in pop music by white artists capitalizing on black female bodies. However, while of course every type of commodification of bodies can be dangerous, Swift’s particular take on black women has the potential to be one of the more dangerous.

                The reason is simple: Taylor is a home-grown girl and with her blond hair and blue eyes, she’s the embodiment of American values. As such, everything she does is coded as all-American, relatable, and most importantly, innocent.  When she slut-shames, she’s innocuous; when she crawls through the legs of faceless black female dancers, it’s all in good fun. I mean, after all its Taylor Swift, right?  This association with the harmless girl-next-door type is precisely why “Shake It Off” has the potential to be so dangerous – it normalizes the commodification of black female bodies and packages it in the good ol’ American girl. There’s nothing wrong with what she’s doing, she can’t possibly be like Miley or Iggy – Taylor’s a sweetheart. Yet, what we see is a handful of black women (most of whom are in the twerking group) with their faces hidden, shaking their asses. But if Taylor Swift = American, what does it mean to have the one group that has more than one black woman shot almost exclusively from behind? What does that say about the black female body in pop culture? In America? Ultimately, the direction of this video accomplishes 3 things – 1) Remove humanity from these black women through  obscuring their faces, 2) Reduce black women to their asses thereby utterly objectifying them, and 3) Tell the world that it’s okay because “Look! They’re twerking! That’s so cool!”                 To really hit home, with her girl-next-door persona, this all-American girl is effectively highlighting all-American values that say black women should not be seen/humanized but we can consume their bodies for our entertainment. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying boycott Taylor Swift, it’s just that this video was a mistake. While she may have thought, “Oh! Let’s have some incredible dancers in my video while I act endearingly awkward”, there are deep racial and historical implications in how the bodies of black women performed in that space.                 This song will no doubt be a hit (I’ll admit it’s fucking catchy) but with it comes a very real consequence that positions black women as props.  I write all this to say, honestly, people just need to think a bit harder about presentation when incorporating cultures not their own.