Self-Empowerment: A Blurry Affair

Words are such an important element of empowerment. If reclaiming “bitch” or “slut” or “cunt” means that words that used to hurt are now positive terms of power for women, that’s a good thing right?

But what if the majority of people use those words as negative terms? Can we still be empowered by words that the majority of our culture uses to demean us?

I love to feel empowered. I love feeling totally in control on my body and choices and feeling like “FUCK YEAH BITCHES I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR MY POWER!”

I love reclaiming words. I had a really interesting discussion with friends the other night about reclaiming derogatory female based insults. Like “bitch” or “cunt”. “Bitch” seems to be reclaimed somewhat. I say things like “Bitch, I love you.” all the time. But “cunt” is still frowned upon? It’s the worst word that most people can say and it’s about a female vagina. So I get it. The fact that a slang word for my vagina is also an extreme insult for someone you hate is bad. But I have friends who use it in a positive sense (“you look cunty!” as slang for “you look awesome”). I don’t use “cunt” in my language. I used to say it though but I removed it from my swear vocabulary because I didn’t like the connotations. I have friends who don’t say “bitch” or “dick” or other gendered terms because using someone’s gender and genitalia as an insult because they feel like that is a poor way to foster equality between people.

What does empowerment mean? Can things that have been degrading be empowering? What about if only the individual feels empowered by the words or actions rather than the majority of the group? Take for instance the song “Blurred Lines” and how Robin Thick has said that the song is a mini “Feminist movement”:

 It’s supposed to stir conversation, it’s supposed to make us talk about what’s important and what the relationship between men and women is, but if you listen to the lyrics it says ‘That man is not your maker’ – it’s actually a feminist movement within itself.

I started thinking about this after reading this criticism of Robin Thicke’s music video “Blurred Lines” by Elizabeth Plank. Emily Ratajkowski, the brown haired model in the video in her interview in Esqure said “[The women] were directed to have a sort of confidence, a sarcastic attitude of the whole situation” and “The video is actually celebrating women and their bodies.”

Celebrating or exploiting?

Empowering or objecting?

Plank goes on to make this point:

 So what happens when the model in the song doesn’t think the video is objectifying, but other women do? In other words, if a woman is objectified by the viewer, but she isn’t objectifying herself, is she still an object?… Moreover, if Emily Ratajkowski is stripping down for the camera to point out the absurdity of music videos that portray women who strip down for the camera to the point of absurdity, but her ironic wink isn’t understood by her audience, is it still subversive? The short answer is yes. Sexism can’t be ironic because we’re still not over it.

I can’t see how the nudity or the “eye contact” in the video is empowering. The women are trapped. There is a moment when Thicke blows his cigarette smoke in the blonde model’s face and she continues to stare at the camera, her nose wrinkled in disgust. But she does not move. She does not act like “Yo. Blowing your cigarette smoke DIRECTLY AT MY FACE is a shitty ass move, so I’m gonna shake my bare ass away from your clothed misogyny.” She stands there, sad, her nose wrinkled, trapped.

I am not empowered by that. The message there is that my body belongs to a man, to do with as he pleases, when he pleases.

If the video is supposed to be ironic, well, it’s too subtle. The “irony” (and/or consent) in the song and music video is a definite blurred line between absurdity and cultural norms.

The nudity wasn’t empowering. (You want to see empowering boobs? Check out The Nu Project. Real women, participating in a healing project of what women’s bodies really look like.) The ironic eye contact wasn’t powerful. Mod Carousel made a parody of the video. Switching genders suddenly makes the whole experience weirder. First of all, a man’s bare chest isn’t taboo, but then you have that juxtaposed with the fact all the men are in thongs and make-up which is frowned upon. But then Mod Carousel said this about their video:

We made this video specifically to show a spectrum of sexuality as well as present both women and men in a positive light, one where objectifying men is more than alright and where women can be strong and sexy without negative repercussions.

WHYYYYYYY. Why can’t we have show sex in a positive light without one gender being objectified? That’s not okay. People aren’t objects. I LOVE the Mod Carousel version of the song. I love the question it raises about our culture, sexual expression and sexism. But we can’t fix objectification with more objectification. That’s why Thicke’s “feminist movement” doesn’t work.

There is a difference between enjoying a song and feeling empowered. I enjoy Blurred Lines. I can dance to it; it’s fun to listen to; I’ll turn it up when it comes on the radio. But entertainment should not be where we seek our empowerment.

In the same way, I feel that we shouldn’t seek empowerment from words that are still used to express hate towards us. I am much more empowered by the word “Woman” than I am by “Bitch” because I see the strength of my friends and peers who are fighting to make being a woman a positive thing. But I understand how this might NOT be empowering if you were trans* or non-gender conforming. I am solidly cis-gendered. I am empowered by seeing bodies in positive lights, both sexual and non-sexual. Empowerment means that you gain strength, courage from something. So, if you are empowered from “Blurred Lines” or terms like “Bitch” and “Cunt” then, okay. What are your thoughts? Can empowerment really come from something that had once been used (or is still being used) to convey weakness?

-Flan