Quote Originally Posted by rachel06 View Post
What do you think of lipstick feminists? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Lipstick feminism also referred to as "stiletto feminism" or "slut feminism" [1] is a branch of feminism in which it is not seen as contradictory to both be a feminist and to put on a show to attract men/women. Besides the acceptance of makeup that the title implies, lipstick feminists also do not find stripping, pole dancing, flashing, girl-on-girl exhibitionism, or sometimes even glorification of prostitution to be in conflict with feminism. Lipstick feminism also associates sex with power and the power of sexual allure as power over men.

A more mild degree of lipstick feminism allows proponents to call themselves feminists while still wearing make-up, suggestive clothing such as short skirts, revealing tops, high heels, and other female-specific clothing and accessories usually shunned by more traditional feminists. Also, in milder forms it allows for a feminism that is in favor of equality under the law, equal pay, and other concrete demands for gender equality, but does not take issue with the effect of modern media and culture on gender relations. Many feminists see lipstick feminism as a contradictory philosophy in which women willingly objectify themselves while calling it empowerment.

I find this interesting in the context of feminism and bdsm, because in the cases of both lipstick feminism and female submission, you have women who choose to adopt, at the very least, behaviors that are in apparent conflict with traditional feminist theory. These women assert (or could assert) that because these behaviors are the result of automonous choice and not imposed on them by a patriarchal society, they are compatible with, and even a reflection of, feminist ideals. As the last sentence of the Wikipedia article shows, there are other feminists who still adhere to the concept of false consciousness.

I also find this interesting because of the explicit connection between sexual choices and power relations.
Now THIS is interesting.
I'd like to state that I am in favour of fairness. No group should have ALL the power, or recourse to remedies that force compliance based on inherent traits or characteristics which indicate membership in a gender based on membership in that gender, real or not.

What I find so fascinating about the appeal to false consciousness (other than the fact that it can be read several ways) is that it implies a move towards hegemony, or a preponderance at least, of power on one side.
It looks like Rachel is saying that it isn't fair to arm yourself with the traditional equalizers (ie, lipstick) and call yourself a feminist at the same time.
Whether in the street, at the bar, in the boardroom, or online, representation of female signs do translate into power at the personal level. Too much power to give up willingly. (there's a whole aside about why we stay in Afghanistan here, but I'm skipping it)
So, if objectification IS power at the level where one becomes visible, what is the false consciousness? Is it the "raised awareness" of the "equality" of women, the willingness to use the traditional street level equalizers, or is it the willingness to endure submission or objectification in a gambit to trap and neutralize others, men or women, who respond positively or negatively to the "provocative" female? I mean is this kind of use of power "false" in that it betrays the hopes and wishes of women who came before fighting endless anhilating battles for equality? Any thoughts?