At first when I read this article I thought it was funny - and it is. To sum up (for those too lazy to click on the link) a feminist released pseudo-Victoria Secret ads featuring a variety of differenly colored and shaped women, wearing underwear with slogans such as "Consent is sexy". Personally, I would buy such underwear, both because consent is sexy, and because it's just funny.
But when I thought about the interview with the women behind this project, I realized it revealed a lot of the issues I have with modern American feminism: 1. I do not think Victoria's Secret is obligated to take a stand on women's issues because it happens to sell underwear marketed at women. Something such as "we are anti-rape and genocide" should be assumed to be true of all businesses, unless stated otherwise - or unless they act in a way that indicates the opposite (for example, supporting the Sudanese government or having workplace environments that tolerate sexual harrassment). It would be nice if VS took a stand, and the next wave of charity might be harnessing the altruistic abilities of profit-making organizations, but it is not obligatory, any more than it would be obligatory for any other company. 2. I might not like the super-frilly lace things that VS sells, but I'm not sure how wearing (or marketing) them conflicts with the concept that consent is sexy. I don't think it is giving into rape culture or the patriarchy to wear pink underwear - unless, of course, my black thong with white rhinestones (don't judge me- I bought it when I was twelve) somehow means that I was "asking" for it, in which case you yourself are perpetuating the attitude of rape culture. It is normal to want to look sexy, both for yourself and for your partner. If for you VS undies do the trick, then gezunt aheit.* 3. I do think that the attitude that the only way to look sexy is to wear certain type of underwear (since when did nudity become unfashionable? Have men suddenly stopped liking women's naked bodies, that they need to see that g-string?) is unhealthy - and Victoria's Secret may be accused of selling that message in its marketing campaigns, as well as selling the message that only one type of body is sexy. This is a legitimate critique, but must come within the context of a more general critique of the fashion industry, since VS is not the only company guilty of this.
There is a real women's rights issue with VS - they use slave-like labor producing their products. I have long argued that women's rights and human rights are the same, and have no desire to repeat the argument now.** Suffice it to say: 1. Some of the children being forced to harvest cotton are females 2. Most of these children have mothers, who are pained by the situation (and father's who are pained by it as well) 3. Some of the male children will grow up and mate with women bearing the emotional scars of modern day slavery.
All of the reasons above are only part of why child labor is a very real women's rights/human rights issue - and it would be much more productive to have a conversation about that, then about whether or not VS's current underwear designs "lean more towards rape culture". I am not saying that conversation has no value, but it's time for modern-day, American feminism to get its priorities right. If feminism is about helping and empowering women, let's help empower women working against female genital mutilation in Somalia, or even help a homeless women on our local street-corner, before we complain about the design of slave-made cotton underwear.
* An extension of the "pink undies give into the patriarchy" idea is that all hetero sex gives into the patriarchy. I oppose this idea: Some women are biologically programmed to want to screw men. Fulfilling this desire is an act of empowerment, a feminist act. Sleeping with women when you like men, would just be an exercise in misery, thus opressing women. But yes, feminism must aim to level the playing field, so the power dynamics between the genders allow women to pursue male mates or female mates in a world of equality between males and females, and yes, the current inequality between the two does impact the average straight girl's lovelife in a very real way.
** If a woman is opressed, it is a women's rights issue - but it's also a human rights issue because she is human - and I believe the second formulation is more productive, both in terms of marketing and of substance. Read Simone de Beauvoir and get back to me.
