La Femme unidimensionnelle

by Nina Power, Nicolas Vieillescazes (Traduction)

A mi-chemin du pamphlet et du texte théorique, cet ouvrage pourfend les dévoiements dont le féminisme a fait l'objet. Comment le féminisme, jadis pratique utopique et révolutionnaire, a-t-il pu devenir un discours hégémonique parfaitement adapté aux exigences du marché ? Comment ses ennemis d'hier ont-ils pu se l'approprier ? Car aujourd'hui, le féminisme est partout, prétexte à vendre tout et n'importe quoi, des vibromasseurs aux chaussures de luxe en passant bien entendu par soi-même. L'auteure analyse de façon claire, vivante et concise les principaux points d'application d'un féminisme cheval de Troie du néolibéralisme : la consommation, la guerre, le rapport à soi et le marché du travail. Elle souligne qu'en dépit de leur diversité voire de leurs incohérences, les usages actuels du mot " féminisme " participent d'un processus global de marchandisation : les femmes doivent apprendre à " valoriser leurs atouts ", considérer leur corps comme un ensemble de pièces détachées, devenir des mères idéales sans oublier d'aller se vendre sur le marché du travail ni de maîtriser à la perfection l'art de la sexualité. Après la femme-objet, voici la femme-marchandise ! Dans notre époque prétendument post-féministe, les femmes se trouvent donc enfermées, sous couvert d'émancipation, dans une nouvelle forme d'essentialisation et de servitude. En s'appuyant sur des exemples tirés du cinéma, de la philosophie, de l'actualité, de la pornographie et des luttes féministes d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, ce livre montre que l'unidimensionnalité n'est pas une fatalité pour les femmes, et que le combat féministe se trouve non pas derrière nous, mais devant nous.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Theory, Essays, Gender

128 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Dr Nina Power is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Roehampton University. She is the co-editor of Alain Badiou's On Beckett (Clinamen), and the author of several articles on European Philosophy, atomism, pedagogy, art and politics.

Reviews

[Meiver · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is just a long rant, without a central point. It's also outdated in content & thought if you've been in American academia & dealing with gender/queer theory & cultural studies.

[Natalie · Rating 1 out of 5]

$15.00 for a 70 page book is not what I would call a good investment. I don't mind reading all types of literature fiction or non, however this was beyond my comprehension. I felt that I had to have a dictionary at my side and for the life of me I cannot find out what 'CV' means. She placed it at random in her rantings and never gave it a meaning.

I had to read this book for my Women in History class and write a paper on it. To read it and understand it is an obstacle that I wish to never repeat.

I've had my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law read this and they have come to the conclusion that this book is quite hateful and not a good read. There has to be better books than this to learn from.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book contains quite a few gems, but is mired in academic jargon. I don't agree with some of what she said, but much more I never fully understood. I was often unclear on her position (is she making fun of this? lauding it?), and at other times I felt her irrelevant biases were all too clear. It's a quick read though, worth a shot.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Power covers a lot of ground in a very short space. Her criticism seeks to argue for a re-emergence of Marxist feminism and I believe she manages to make a strong case, by pinning some damning notes on a few transversals of feminist use values. For instance, marking a loci on Sarah Palin, Power is able to illustrate how simple "feminist" representations can be staged to lend credence to retrograde ideologies. Or how admittance into the work place has lead to a deepening of survelliance and a spread of intrusion into the personal lives of employees by management - all objectification under the guise of feminist success.

Her most damning critique, though, is leveled at the buy in of feminists to the consumer-based capital that supports the ideologies of imperialist hierarchy and Capital patriarchy. The sassy, choco-vibrator style of Jessica Valenti is a straw dog that Power enables just enough to watch burn completely. Of course, its not fair to level a structured materialist critique against the celebration of women's choices within and outside their market demographic, but it is still valuable to understand.

If Power granted "feminism" the same historical room to breathe as she does "pornography" there might be a better middle to this book. But otherwise, a strong effort that opens many avenues of adventure and thought.

[Lura · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very short but definitely interesting book.
Now, personally I think Power did choose an easy target: "shiny feminism" (pink, shopping, dildos = empowerment & equality) is so shallow that one does not need to be the brightest bulb to see how it really has nothing to do with female empowerment, independence or equal rights. Now I say this should be very obvious - but the flocking crowds at "sex and the city " franchises prove me completely wrong.
But this is also why this book is very short, it is more of an expanded essay - and it is indeed very witty. It is written in one breath ( reminded me a lot of the -Beat fervor) and hammers down a lot of post-feminism arguments and the supposed superfluity of feminist activism in the 21st century.
I personally am a sucker for titles, so of course I also loved the reference to Marcuse [a book I really, really love even though it has been so often critiqued]. I spared a couple of hours for reading this, and it was definitely worthwhile.

[Emily Laurent-Monaghan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fast moving, densely theoretical text. Power zigzags humour and philosophy as regards the one-dimensional hedonia that has become Feminism. She takes up cinema, pornography, the nuclear family, consumerism and more, to indict, tickle, make fun of what has become defanged: a critique of political economy as regards gender and sex, a dialectic of Sex, as Shulamith Firestone calls it.

A very good read.

[Daisy · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is not a feminist statement to admit you like chocolate - not sure who thinks it is. Silent movie era porn has more variety of female bodies and looks like everyone is having more fun than today's production line versions and Sarah Palin's 'problem' was that she was all things to all people and so impossible to be liked by anyone.
Another book that bemoans the fact that feminism has somewhat sold out, that women are told if they buy this, do that etc they are an ass kicking feminist so they can not feel bad when they kiss another girl in front of a guy to appear to be the 'cool girl'. We know this and yet Power is another author who can't bring herself to align herself with the feminists that no one wants be aligned with. Complain about pornography but let's steer clear of mentioning whether Dworkin had a point because Dworkin isn't a cool feminist.
If you are at all interested in the arguments of feminism I'd avoid this and pick up Bitchfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine.

[AK · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of all the markers of female faux-emancipation (fauxmancipation?) that Power bulldozes in this book, I was most glad to see her demolish chocolate. I do not care for chocolate that much. It is fine. I'd prefer shortbread any day of the year, which, in contemporary feminist-lite rhetoric about 'what women want,' makes me some kind of, I don't know, boy. Reading women writing cheekily about how really all they want is to eat chocolates and not get chubby has always filled me with a vague despair. Power writes:

"I think there's a very real sense in which woman are supposed to say 'chocolate' whenever someone asks them what they want. It irresistibly symbolizes any or all of the following: ontological girlishness, a naughty virginity that gets it kicks only from a widely-available mucky cloying substitute, a kind of pecuniary decadence."

Yeah. Take that, Chocolate Industrial Complex.

In a mere 69 pages Power comes down hard on much of contemporary feminism, arguing the term has either been co-opted by people like Sarah Palin who argue they're feminists just because they're women, or come to stand for the guiltless indulgence of the liberated, 'empowered' female consumer. Jessica Valenti's book Full Frontal Feminism get a particularly thorough dressing down, as it provides numerous examples of the 'feminists buy what they wanna buy!' style of emancipation through consumption that Power reviles. Other reviews have noted that Valenti is a bit of a straw-woman here, as her website Feministing contains examples of the structural critiques that Power repeatedly asks for, but Power's argument is valid and powerfully argued nonetheless.

The flip side to the emancipated consumer is the capable professional, representative of the 'feminization of labor' and the 'laborization of women.' Power's materialist framework allows her to think through the changing vicissitudes of contemporary work in an engaging way, culminating in her really, totally awesome dissection of everything that is wrong with porn these days. If, like me, you don't have any fundamental moral objection to pornography, and yet wonder why so much of it sucks so bad (blows so hard??), might I offer this sentence as a tantalizing clue-

"The excessive taxonomical drive of contemporary pornography is merely one element of its quest to bore us all to death and remind us that everything is merely a form of work, including, or even most especially, pleasure."

Power ends with a call for rethinking the possibility of communes, collectivism, and unorthodox forms of reproduction as potential ways out of the eternal vacillation between working and shopping and shopping and work, which some of my fellow Goodreaders have found a little odd, but I think is just fine, especially since this call is intertwined with a provocative critique of 'sexoleftism.' More than just the 'sites of resistance' that every activist and their mother is talking about these days, Power ends with suggestions for alternate modes of being.

[xenia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kinda funny, mostly a mess.

I agree with the thesis: feminism has been co-opted by capitalism. Wokeness, girl boss, lean in, whatever. Individualist identification has replaced collective demands for systemic change. Feels like an old argument by now. We define ourselves through consumption, the endless accumulation of commodified experiences, unto a world of abstract signs — all the easier for us, as labouring bodies, to be measured and judged by the labour market.

But if someone gave me a t-shirt that had WITCH-SLUT printed on it, I'd wear it lol. As Helen Todd said, "bread for all, and roses too." I don't believe sex-positivity is at odds with direct action, even if sex-positivity has been co-opted by market forces. We don't just abandon everything that is taken from us — we take back. We re-appropriate, re-signify, and re-contextualise all that is stolen by capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism and fascism — otherwise, we're left with nothing but dispossession, resentment and nostalgia.

Power is snappy, but not particularly deep in her analysis. She doesn't seem to understand that life under capitalism is life in contradiction. How does she know the woman across the street buying a vibrator isn't also an anarchist, artist or indigenous scholar? She has no ethnography, no discourse analysis, no statistics to back up her claims. She collapses the market into the mindset of its consumers, and in doing so, gives into the pessimism of exchange value — of only seeing the world through exchange value. I don't know about you, but to me, that's entrapment in capitalist mindset, par excellence; or, at least, in an elitist disdain of the masses that will attract a few edgelords to your side (before leaving a trail of PTSD in their wake once they discover your WITCH-SLUT vibrator orgies).

Edit: okay, chapter 3 is fucking lit. It's where Power starts exploring alternative conceptions of sex, sexuality, reproduction and social organisation. Mostly socialist and socialist feminism communes and ideas. (Yo, get this: there was a commune where you had to fuck 5 times a day, and you couldn't fuck the same person each week, so you had to fuck 35 different people every week! That is hilarious — and awful.) I would have absolutely loved a whole book tracing these sexual relations across history. Guess it's time to dive into Foucault's lsd dream valley again.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

A sputtery, incoherent mess. As with Laurie Penny's Meat Market, the length isn't remotely long enough to sustain the topic. Power has the occasional interesting thought, but the writing obscures them. She doesn't give especially persuasive arguments in the few cases where she can provide an alternative, instead preferring to present them to the audience as a foregone conclusion. I, too, think that Jessica Valenti's feminism is superficial and cosmetic. However, if Power is the alternative, not many people are likely to be convinced.

[Jalilah · Rating 3 out of 5]

2 1/2 stars really. I agree with the many reviewers who say the writing is all over the place, but regardless I did agree with a lot of what she writes. I found the chapter on the differences starting from early 20th century porn up until today very interesting.

[Murtaza · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very engaging long-essay on the consumerization of modern feminism among other things. I found especially interesting the passages dealing with feminism as utilized as a tool of imperialism, the creation of the feminist as arch-capitalist and consumer, and finally the slanted portrayal of women in media (Sex and the City comes to mind). Very funny and well-written as well.

[Christine Benagh · Rating 2 out of 5]

I object to the premise. As a thoughtful, politically-active feminist and lawyer who is in no way tied to consumerism, I find the portrayal offensive.

[lonesome dreaming · Rating 1 out of 5]

so annoying

[Elif Erışık · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although very succint and insightful, I felt like some of the segues between references in the individual chapters weren't as seamless as they could've been.

I understand that this very short book is merely an attempt to identify the problem at hand but I certainly would've enjoyed it more if it elaborated on the more abstract ideas it draws on (death of interiority, the blurring of the line between the objective and the subjective and how that relates to the physicality of the body etc.).

But all in all, from now on I will be on the lookout for anything written by Nina Power.

[Kin · Rating 4 out of 5]

สละเวลามาอ่านเล่มนี้เพลิน ๆ เพราะมันสั้นแค่ 70 หน้า แต่ภาษาสวิงสวายตามประสา Zero Books มาก ๆ

หัวใจหลักมันคือวิพากษ์สตรีนิยมยุคปัจจุบันที่คนเขียนเห็นว่าความหมายมันเพี้ยนไปเพราะดันไปร่วมมือกับทุนนิยมและบริโภคนิยม สตรีนิยมและเฟมินิสต์แบบกาละแมร์ หรือ working woman คนอื่น ๆ (โอเค อาจมีคนเถียงว่าพวกนี้เป็น female chauvinism แต่ลองนึกถึงเคสต่างประเทศ พวก Sarah Palin ซึ่งคนเขียนก็พูดถึงไว้ในบทนึงว่าได้รับเสียงเชียร์ในฐานะเฟมินิสต์คนนึงยังไง) มีลักษณะที่คนเขียนเรียกว่า ผู้หญิงมิติเดียว (แน่นอนว่ายืมชื่อมาจากงานของ Marcuse) คือกลายเป็นผู้หญิงที่เป็นยอดหญิงผ่านการบริโภคและการทำงาน ออกมาจากครัวเรือน ใส่ส้นสูง ทำงานออฟฟิซ เลี้ยงตัวเองได้ ซื้อสินค้าต่าง ๆ ได้ ไม่ต้องพึ่งพาผู้ชาย จนไปถึงสามารถซื้อผู้ชาย และเป็นนายตัวเอง

ลักษณะของผู้หญิงมิติเดียวกลายเป็นเป้าหมายที่ผู้หญิงในสังคมร่วมสมัยปรารถนา ผลคือ การเป็นยอดหญิงของคนเหล่านี้เข้ามาแทนความหมายของสตรีนิยมสมัยใหม่ คือยกย่องความเท่าเทียม หรือบางครั้งเหนือกว่า ของความเป็นหญิงในบริบทสาธารณะ จนทำให้คำว่า สตรีนิยมกลายเป็นคำที่กินความหมายกว้างขวางมาก คือรวมเอาทุกอย่างที่ทำให้ผู้หญิงรู้สึกและความเป็นหญิงดูดีว่าเป็นสตรีนิยมทั้งหมด แต่ปัญหาคือ คนเขียนเห็นว่า สตรีนิยมร่วมสมัยเริ่มเข้าใจความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างร่างกาย การทำงาน และความสัมพันธ์ทางสังคมอย่างตื้นเขินขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ มองไม่เห็นว่าสิ่งที่เป็นอยู่นั้นไม่ได้ทำให้พวกเธอเป็นอิสระ แต่ตกอยู่ใต้ความสัมพันธ์ทางสังคมที่กำกับโดยทุนนิยมและบริโภคนิยมมากกว่า การปลดปล่อยผู้หญิงให้เป็นยอดหญิงมิติเดียวจึงไม่ต่างอะไรกับการปลดปล่อยมนุษย์ให้เป็นอิสระภายใต้สังคมทุนนิยม คือเน้นเสรีภาพที่จะซื้อ ที่จะบริโภค และที่จะขาย (พรีเซนต์) ตัวเอง ขณะเดียวกันก็มองเห็นความเป็นการเมืองของเรื่องเพศอย่างจำกัด โดยไม่รู้ว่าความหมายของความเป็นเฟมินิสต์ถูกหยิบยืมไปใช้ทั้งโดยพวกนิยมสงคราม เสรีนิยมทางการเมือง และเสรีนิยมทางเศรษฐกิจ อย่างไร และไม่เห็นว่า ชีวิตที่เป็นอิสระจากผู้ชายของพวกเธอเป็นการเมืองอย่างไร และความเป็นอิสระที่ว่าทำให้ผู้หญิงต้องตกอยู่ภายใต้การครอบงำของสิ่งไหนและอย่างไรบ้าง

ทำนองนี้

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

In recent years, feminism, at least as it seems to be understood in popular perceptions, seems to have rediscovered politics. Nina Power's contribution to the excellent series of essays published by Zone Books (I say excellent on the basis of now having read two of them) rebuts feminism as self-help therapy and chocolate consumption justification in favour of an argument that reminds us that Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin and Ayaan Hirsi Ali may be women but they don't offer anything that might be liberatory feminism or a better world for women (while some of Ali's attacks on Islamist patriarchy may seem to help, her neo-conservatism does not).

Power, instead, takes us into a line of argument that weaves together materialist analyses of the feminisation of labour and the labourisation of women, the politics of sex and sexuality as pleasure, and asserts the vital role of class, race, and place as issues in gender oppressions and gendered struggles. There is not a lot here that is necessarily new, although the argument that pornography is possibly the encapsulation of all that is work in contemporary capitalism – dull, monotonous, and relentless – alongside the argument that the critique of pornography as objectifying assumes that there is a distinct subjectivity that can be identified is quite possibly a fair encapsulation of the current gender order.

In reminding us of things that are not neceessarily new, Power invokes things that have not much profile for quite some time (Reich on pleasure for instance, class, and an analysis of gender that accentuates paid work), Power says what she says with style, verve and passion – although she could be a little more generous in admitting that she is not the first to have made many of her points. Highly recommended.

[Damaskcat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book is - I would suggest - one of the most important publications of recent years concerning the way feminism operates today. It asks some uncomfortable questions about how consumerism has taken such a hold on women to the extent that many are simply concerned with buying the current 'must have' designer handbag rather than trying to change the world for the better.

The author argues that feminism has lost the plot and the position of women is not improving. She highlights the way women's bodies are objectified - even by women themselves, and deplores the prevailing fashion which decrees women must imitate porn stars. 'Sex and the City' shows women obsessed with their appearance, buying the latest consumer desirable and obsessing over whether their latest man is 'The One'. Feminism seems to have lost the plot when appearance is the only thing that matters in every sphere of life.

Feminism has been subsumed into the idea of feeling better about oneself whatever one does and recent books about feminism aimed at young women are all about self esteem rather than about the politics of women's position in the world. I urge anyone interested in these issues to read this book - especially if you feel feminism has lost the battle or even the war.

[Sahar · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب بسیار جالب خیلی از مفروضات ذهنی را به چالش میکشه.اونجایی که از فمنیست هایی میگه که در جهت خلاف اهداف فمنیسم که برابری باشه حرکت می کنند. مثلا سارا پولین را مثال میزنه که در کلاب فمنیست ها عضو بوده ولی در مورد سقط جنین تابع نظریات محافظه کارانه حزبش بوده. اونجایی که از کپیتالیسم میگه و اینکه چگونه زن یا مرد در جهت منافع اون وادار به حرکت میشیم.. تاریخ پورنوگرافی را خیلی قشنگ روایت میکنه و اینکه چطوری فمنیست های رادیکال در دهه 1970 با آن مخالفت کردند و الان دیدگاه فمنیسم نسبت به اون چی هست. از طرفی از حجاب مبگه که چرا ما انتظار داریم که آزادی همه ادمها را اونطوری که خودمون دوست داریم تعریف کنیم. به نظر او اینکه بعضی از زنها حجاب داشته باشند چون خلاف نظر کاپیتالیسم هست که انداممون بیرون باشه ضد آزادی تفسیر میشه. بسیار توصیه می کنم این کتاب را
مشکلی که داره این هست که نیاز به پیشینه تاریخی داره برای درک بهترش و تحقیق درباب اسمها و نظریاتیکه به کار برده. با این دید نوشته شده که خواننده در جریان مباحث روز جامعه فمنیستی هست

[Feli · Rating 2 out of 5]

this book is...not very brilliant. some instances power seems 2 be getting at something significant and then she loses the thread, throws in some anecdote / loose observation and that's it.
her assessment of relations between men and women condemns them, yet reinforces them at the same time. as a lesbian this book does not cover my experiences at all.. goes 2 show just how much womanhood and heterosexuality are inextricably linked. her account by virtue of its form and messiness cannot adequately cover the violence inherent to gender / womanhood.

her woman subject seems 2 consider only a certain type of straight, white, european, cis woman.

the parts that were best was the chapter on work, and the first part about pornography.

it is obvious that power has a lot of knowledge of feminist theory and discussions, but here she does not offer her own stringent analysis nor does she succeed in giving an easily understandable introduction and alternative to mainstream liberal feminism.

[Suzanne]

This is another of a series of odd acquisitions I’ve made when choosing something to read from the limited English-language book selection of a bookshop I’ve visited on vacation.

The book’s cover asks: “Where have all the interesting women gone?” But the author isn’t saying. She’s also not saying what she thinks makes for an interesting woman, much less identifying any.

At least the book’s short! It’s also jargon-y, jumpy, and bitter. I also am not sure what the author was trying to say except that current versions of feminism are messed up. Maybe she can’t identify exactly what “good feminism” should be, but it would’ve helped if she’d at least given a little direction.

It’s dated, too — when she was harrumphing about Sarah Palin and wondering whether Barack Obama would make a difference, I thought Oh honey, just you wait!

[Bridget Symonds · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am absolutely loving this book, it is short and very easy to read....more on this when I am done!

Fantastic, easy to read, raises lots of questions and is the only recent text I have read that reasonably questions what being a feminist means for women in the 21st Century. It discusses sex work, domestic labour, the hijab and the continual use of capitalism as a demonstration of success and therefore, possibly, equality. This only touches on the depth of this book and for a 60 page book Power covers alot eloquently and with great wit and context.

highly recommended.

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtful, funny and urgent book. One wishes Nina were not a TERF, but we love her anyway. I will return to this book eventually and review it in greater detail.

***

Nina isn't stupid, she's funny and witty, but her devotion to the straight lifestyle has led her to say some pretfy silly things. It's nice to return to this record of her younger, smarter self, back when she was a radical. Who knows, perhaps one day she will start thinking seriously again; I hope so, since the world needs more books like this one.

[Polly]

A compelling, easy and well-written little book. A really good intro for students if they are not buying feminism.

[graceofgod · Rating 2 out of 5]

Underwhelming. And extremely creepy near the end. The beginning and middle were interesting enough.

[berthamason · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars.

[sologdin · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's difficult to know what to make of this pamphlet. Though it takes Marcuse as a point of departure and relies on Badiou a bit, the author seems to have engaged in some far right activity over the years--so maybe this is an attempt to co-opt leftwing concerns for a critique of liberal feminism?
That would make sense as the rightwing argument against feminism is insipid patriarchal bluster.

It's not like the argument of this text is wrong, of course--the overlap of liberal feminism and capitalism is fairly standard insofar as some variants of liberal feminism limit their concerns to mere market participation. Every once in a while it seems as though this tract seems to sympathize with Ben Shapiro snarking that WAP is what feminists fought for. I mean, kinda, yeah--but not only, duh.

So, am not sure on this one. Yes, "the self-congratualtory feminism that celebrates individual identity above all else is a one-dimensional feminism." This statement could be part of a far left omnibus critique or a far right doctrine that is opposed to mere market liberalism for its own sake.

Consider further a statement from the introduction that "the height of supposed female emancipation coincides so perfectly with consumerism is a miserable index of a politically desolate time," which might be taken as a far right comment if emphasis falls on supposed as sardonic rather than critical.

We see a bit of arriere garde theistic reasoning in how "it is as if plastic surgery and the concomitant bloodletting did not expunge a malevolent spirit, but insert one." It could be irony, but it also could just be crazy, aye?

There is some nuance presented, such as in the line of argument regarding how "there is no longer a gap between an internal realm of desires, wants, and fantasies and the external presentation of oneself as a sexual being," which does not strike me as a rightist position. That said, there's plenty of uncritical acceptance of the sort of sex/gender binary thinking, which Judith Butler crushed, all taken for granted: "it's every woman for herself" or "capitalism selectively remembers that women are women." Just what is the atom of analysis here? Like, someone says 'women' and simply assumes that it has a stable significance.

This text is 2009, so maybe it's a bona fide lefty text at that point, but given her later evolution, hard not to see the seeds.

[Anomalie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eine bewusst polemische Abhandlung, die mit der postfeministischen Selbstzufriedenheit westlicher Gegenwartsgesellschaften abrechnet. In klarer Anlehnung an Herbert Marcuses “Der eindimensionale Mensch” kritisiert Power die kulturelle und ökonomische Reduktion weiblicher Subjektivität im Zeichen neoliberaler Verwertungslogiken.

Der zeitgenössische Feminismus, so die Autorin, ist in weiten Teilen „entkernt“ – er hat sich von seinen systemkritischen Wurzeln entfernt und ist im Lifestyle-Individualismus, in marktfreundlichen Empowerment-Diskursen und in konsumgetriebener Selbstoptimierung aufgegangen. Frauen werden in diesem Rahmen nicht emanzipiert, sondern funktionalisiert: als Arbeitskräfte, Marken oder Objekte sexueller Verfügbarkeit – all dies unter dem Deckmantel vermeintlicher Wahlfreiheit.
Ich stimme zu

Power plädiert für eine Rückbesinnung auf kollektive, materialistische Analysen von Geschlecht, Arbeit und Macht – ein Anliegen, das angesichts der neoliberalen Vereinnahmung feministischer Rhetoriken nach wie vor hochaktuell ist.
Ich stimme zu

Trotz dieser analytischen Schärfe bleibt das Buch in Teilen oberflächlich. Die Kürze, die zugespitzte Sprache und die teils bissige Rhetorik wirken mitunter wie Ersatz für theoretische Tiefe und begriffliche Differenzierung. Als Einstieg in marxistisch-feministische Kritik eignet sich das Buch vielleicht– insbesondere für Leserinnen, die sich von neoliberalen „Girl Boss“-Narrativ befreien wollen. Für mich wirklich nichts neues oder erhellendes.

Nicht überzeugend war für
mich ihre Diskussion um das Kopftuch. Ihre Deutung als kapitalistisches Symbol in einer sexualisierten Kulturindustrie ist nicht nur analytisch verkürzt, sondern riskiert, in eine typische weiße Form des paternalistischen Feminismus’ zu kippen. Anstatt emanzipatorische Kämpfe zu verbinden, kulturelle Spaltung.

Religion ist das „Opium des Volkes“ . Aber ich halte es weder politisch noch ethisch für zielführend, religiöse Praktiken wie das Tragen eines Kopftuchs auf individueller Ebene zu delegitimieren. Der Kampf gegen patriarchale Strukturen sollte nicht auf dem Rücken jener ausgetragen werden, die selbst in mehrfachen Machtverhältnissen stehen. Glaube ich das jegliche Religion besonders Frauen schadet? Ja. Muss ich deswegen in den Kreuzzug gegen Frauen die Kopftuch tragen ziehen? Nein.
Die Einbettung als antikapitalistisches Symbol bzw gegen die Verfügbarkeit des weiblichen Körpers greift mir zu hoch.

[Colin Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

One Dimensional Woman is a compact and readable introduction to contemporary concerns within feminism. Power is endlessly quotable, but this is a short text that feels less like a book and more like an essay or M.A. thesis. As the title suggests, Power pivots from the deeply influential One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse, and in doing so, she argues that feminism has transformed into a one-dimensional philosophy, overly determined by notions of self-fulfillment and consumerism. She argues, “For all its glee and excitement, the self-congratulatory feminism that celebrates individual identity above all else is a one-dimensional feminism” (69). Power's analysis of chocolate, for example, is witty and sharp while also encapsulating her critique of one-dimensional feminism: “Chocolate represents that acceptable everyday extravagance that all-too-neatly encapsulates just the right kind of perky passivity that feminized capitalism just loves to reward with a bubble bath and some crumbly cocoa solids. It sticks in the mouth a bit…It irresistibly symbolizes any or all of the following: ontological girlishness, a naughty virginity that gets its kicks only from a widely-available mucky cloying substitute, a kind of pecuniary decadence” (36-37). While she may lack the breadth and virtuosity of a figure like Zizek is a text of this length, his influence as a culture critic is visible in moments like this.

However, One Dimensional Woman is neither that simple nor that predictable. Power is far more interested in female labor (both inside and outside the domestic sphere) and the ways in which female labor is understood and misunderstood, visible and hidden. Her chapters on sex work possess a degree of focus the remainder of the book, at times, lacks. If anything, this is the one topic I want Power to explore in a lengthier more robust way.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't understand fully the very negative reviews, though I guess many agree since those reviews are the most liked. Some seem slighted by the criticism Nina Power offers.

This text is a polemic feminist critique of contemporary feminism that also wants to enumerate the issues that Nina Power feels must be dealt with by truly egalitarian feminism. Nina Power specifically advocates a Marxist feminist perspective as far as I can tell. I should clarify that this was "contemporary feminism" at the time, some topics in this can appear dated though I don't think the points are lost either. Palin is used as an example of how "feminism" can be recuperated by reactionaries as it stands, but I think you could adapt the discussion to cover neoliberal politicians that are a bit less in your face (e.g. HRC).

Power covers quite a bit of ground pretty quickly discussing imperialist feminism, feminization of labor, consumerism (maybe alternatively: choice as emancipation), and sex politics. Some reviewers seem to not like that the alternatives are unclear and Power describes problems without solutions, but she says this is hopefully more useful to a future feminism. Further, describing problems that particular forms of feminism do not adequately solve, or even actively perpetuate, without posing your own solutions explicitly is fine, it's raw materials to refine yourself.

Ultimately, I think this is a good short text exploring a few Marxist feminist observations and how popular forms of feminism like "lean-in" feminism fail to emancipate. I do think that this book is almost too short though, it can be difficult to follow where Power is going and what point she is trying to make and sometimes she seems unfocused. However, again, this book is a short read.