I have no idea what to make of the Pussycat Dolls. I love their music, but I’m deeply troubled by the fact that they claim to be happy–if not “empowered”–by being sex objects. People (even the New York Times) have hawked the Pussycat Dolls as the guardians of “third wave feminism” (today’s feminism, that asserts that you can be girly and be a feminist)… but I don’t think that is true at all.
Robin Antin, the “founder” of the Pussycat Dolls, said that her goal in creating the Pussycat Dolls was to have each of the women look like a “living, breathing doll.” And it worked: the Pussycat Dolls are all perfectly toned, seductive, and stylish women who have the kind of lure to adolescent males that Bratz dolls have to seven year old girls.
One of my favorite books, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, discusses how some women today often want to participate in and feel empowered by things that have traditionally hurt women, like posing for Playboy and being in Girls Gone Wild videos. And I think that’s exactly what the Pussycat Dolls represent. We sing can really loud to their music (”Loosen up my buttons, babe”), freak to their music at dances and in clubs, and emulate their style, and it feels good… powerful, even… but many women’s studies experts argue that because we’ve been raised from day 1 to please guys.
Their latest song “I don’t need a man” hawks how “the Dolls” don’t need a guy to feel complete, or have orgasms. But at the same time, in their video for “I don’t need a man,” they are all scantily clad (some in black corsets), gyrating, shaving their legs and putting on perfume (why that is, is beyond me) and making dumb-looking faces… which, if it were any other song, would be lures to impress male viewers. Wait–they still are.
I am really uncomfortable with the idea that the Pussycat Dolls might be role models for girls… If emulating a Pussycat Doll is empowerment, I’d hate to see what oppression looks like.