Bimbos, Barbie, Feminism, and Marxism

Bimbos were a staple of 2000s tabloid gossip, with publications across the globe using the word to degrade and put down women like Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, and Paris Hilton. In fact, a New York Post cover from the time has a picture of the three women as a backdrop to the text "Bimbo Summit."

                                        Aforementioned headline.

Yeah, real mature. Since then, the word fell out of fashion, along with the noun bimbofication but it was defined loosely as something along the lines of:

Bimbo: an attractive but unintelligent or frivolous young woman (frivolous here meaning not having any purpose or value.)

Bimbofication: used by social media users to describe when somebody becomes more attractive, has a 'glow up' or becomes more sexualised.

In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world, in the visual arts and in literature, from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer.
Even pretending you aren't catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you're unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching women. You are your own voyeur.
 

Ironically, the term 'bimbo' was initially used in the 19th Century to describe a foolish or incompetent man but became much more female-centric in the 2000s as tabloids looked for more inflammatory and degrading things to call powerful women. The word came back quite powerfully in the 1980s - most prominently as a label for the lover of Presidential Candidate Gary Hart, Donna Rice. At the time, and presently, the traditional Bimbo look consists of full lips, blonde hair, a curvy figure, and lots of makeup - oh, and a LOT of pinks. However, being a Bimbo is not exclusive to those with all of those or any of these features. From Dolly Parton to Anna Nicole Smith, Kim Kardashian to Marilyn Monroe, Pamela Anderson to Katie Price - they've all been called Bimbos. Not always by choice, though. 

On social media, TikTok especially, a new wave of self-identified Bimbos has emerged, with names like Chrissy Chlapecka, (a personal favourite) Meow Barbie, and Hannah Foran. Now, I don't think most of these Bimbos are actually airheads, or in the slightest stupid: we all know Britney has an IQ of 180, Anna Nicole Smith married a Billionaire on his deathbed and Chrissy Chlapecka basically writes queer feminist theory.

Now let's talk about the association between Bimbos and leftism - this is why I love society. A Bimbo is an ally, she's an intersectionalist, she reads theory, she's read Marx, she supports BLM and ACAB, she's a communist. I think the reason this association has emerged is that Bimbos aren't exactly an easy extension of right-wing (or even moderately left-wing) beliefs. I have no doubt that the evangelical establishment of conservatives would just look at a Bimbo and call her a slut. Because Bimbos and Bimbofication, especially online, has become so politicised, it's thought that it's actually a huge gateway for Gen-Z to get into sociopolitical theory - god I love the internet. 

However, whilst there are some Bimbos of colour (what a fun term,) most Bimbos are white, especially those especially prominent and popular online - which leaves women of colour feeling left out and unrepresented. Selfishly, this means that women of colour might not feel included under the umbrella of marxism, which sucks for the utopia I'm advocating for - but even more importantly, when millions of my generation are learning politics, theory, and marxism from white women, there's often a huge gap where intersectionality should exist. There's nothing wrong with privileged cis white women using their platform to talk about racism, intersectionality, and gender expression - but when their discussion about intersectionality ends at their white privilege, it becomes a problem. Another problem arises: if so many women of colour and non-cis women feel excluded from a thing - can that thing even be feminist, communist, or leftist? I'm inclined to argue no.

New-age Bimbofication, in relation to sexual liberation, is complicated. The video essay "WAP and the Spectacle of Sexual Liberation," by Kimberly Foster, was especially helpful to untangle this messy and confusing relationship. In the essay, she asks "why do we have to view everything through the lens of female empowerment, why does everything women do have to relate to feminism, why do we have to use feminism as a justification for enjoying things?" I can understand both sides of the argument. On one side, I can understand why women feel like they wish to exist in a space ignorant of feminism and wish not to have to explain their actions in terms of feminism. On the other, because the term Bimbo was derogatory in the first place, I think it's natural for it to become a debate on feminism and politics because the issue itself is political. Especially when misogynists and conservatives are critiquing Bimbos, it's essential for feminists to come to their defence, and provide a feminist argument against their critique.

In the video, Foster also brings up a valuable point about the representation of black women in contrast to white women within the music industry. She argues that whilst white women have a lot of freedom to choose in what light they wish to be portrayed, black women are given much less choice of more restrictive and degrading options. Also, why are so many images of female empowerment and Bimbofication catering to the male gaze? Shouldn't representations of female empowerment, therefore feminism, and therefore Bimbofication be internal - intended for consumption by somebody that has no need or want for sexualised imagery? Why is the modern face of feminism a representation of male fantasy? Let us, for a moment, define 'the male gaze' that I so love to blame:

Now I'm going to make a kind of psychotic argument for the 'internalised male gaze' theory. I'm not exactly very sure if I believe this theory, and it confuses me immensely, but I'm going to make it work. The idea is that because all women have grown up in a heteronormative and patriarchal society, no matter how women choose to dress, look, or present and represent themselves, they will always be catering to the internalised male gaze, striving to become the woman they think that men want them to be - unconsciously. Apparently, no matter how autonomous and self-serving women believe they are, women do everything they do to serve their idea of men's ideals. 

Again, I'm not sure how much whoever wrote this theory was smoking at the time, but I like parts of it, and I detest others. Sure, I believe that all women, men, and non-binary folk etc. have some kind of internalised male gaze, that they consult with when choosing how to present and represent themselves to society, but at the same time, I think it's somewhat misogynistic and reductive to label all women's actions as male-serving. It also feels very heteronormative to suggest that all women, just by virtue of being born in our hetero-patriarchal society, are always catering to men's fantasies when they might not even be interested in men, and not all men are attracted to them. However, Margaret Atwood, renowned feminist and author of 'The Handmaid's Tale' argues that:

Do you see why I'm confused? I both completely agree with that statement and at the same time, I just wrote an also true paragraph to the contrary. Also, this woman talks like the witches in Macbeth: in riddles, so I'm not even very sure what she's trying to say. 

In conclusion, I feel it's important to acknowledge the exclusion of people of colour from the Bimbo community, whilst having conscious and respectful conversations about how this aesthetic can also feel empowering and special to some women of colour. I think that Kimberley Foster's point about the power of, for a moment, living in a post-feminist world, where you can just do whatever the hell you want without having to justify it with theory. I'm a believer in the internalised male gaze, and the male gaze in general, but I don't feel that it should limit women from dressing however they like - because that just gives men even more power. Last, I think that the politicisation of Bimbos as a group is necessary due to the political, social, and feminist implications of their origin and associations, but I don't think that one has to be political, socially aware, or even a feminist to dress however they like. 

ACAB <3

07/07/2022

by Frankie E.J. Robinson