What feminism really means continues to confuse me. Edward Wyatt’s article titled "Dolls Clad in Feminism, and Hardly Anything Else" begins:
“Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll,” which is to have its premiere on Tuesday night on the CW network, may look like just another reality show with attractive, slinkily dressed women preening for the camera in the hope of a shot at stardom.
But “Pussycat Dolls Present” is about female empowerment, the show’s producers explained to a group of television writers and critics here in January…
“There’s a reason why people like Scarlett Johansson, Gwen Stefani, Cameron Diaz have all been so interested in what Pussycat Dolls is all about,” she said. “They feel that it is empowering to get up there and dress up like a Doll. It’s fun, and it’s something that every girl in the world — she may think one thing, but I think inside every girl in the world wants to do it.”
Empowerment? This is what Ariel Levy of Female Chauvinist Pigs would call: bullshit. I continue to be miffed at how Girls Gone Wild and its kin, according to many women, represent some step forward for feminism. Why can’t we call raunch culture what it is which is women presented as sex objects to a primarily male audience? Why do we accept the bullshit lines about "empowerment" from strippers and hookers who are clearly just trying to make a living?